Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

New Writ (Knowsley North)

Mr. Derek Foster: I beg to move, That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Knowsley, North in the room of Robert Kilroy-Silk, Esquire, who since his election for the said county constituency hath accepted the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the county of York.

Mr. David Alton: Object.

Mr. Speaker: Objection taken. The motion stands over to the commencement of public business.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

COUNTY OF SOUTH GLAMORGAN (TAFF CROSSING) BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (By Order)

Order for further consideration read.

To be further considered upon Thursday 30 October.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Thursday 30 October.

Dr. John Marek: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We shouted "Object", but you did not seem to hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a blocking motion on the Order Paper. I do not need objections.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 30 October.

SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday 28 October.

BEXLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 30 October.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 2) BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the Greater Manchester (Light Rapid Transit System) (No. 2) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed

with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first time and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday 27 October.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 October],
That the Promoters of the City of London (Various Powers) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall he read the first and second time (and shall he recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall he ordered to be read the third time;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday 27 October.

RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [LORDS]

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 October],
That the Promoters of the River Humber (Burcom Outfall) Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend further proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill


Office a declaration signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed);
That, no petitions against the Bill having been presented within the time limited within the present Session, no Petitioners shall be heard before any committee on the Bill save those who complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled up Bill or of any matter which arises during the progress of the Bill before the committee;
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed upon Monday 27 October.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October],
That the Promoters of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session.
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall he recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table with the New Clause as added on Consideration of the Bill as amended.
That no further fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday 28 October at Seven o'clock.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (STANSTED) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [21 October],
That the Promoters of the British Railways (Stansted) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
That no further fees shall he charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Debate to be resumed upon Tuesday 28 October at Seven o'clock.

Mr. Robert Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that my comments will be helpful. In my Order Paper the motion relating to the Bexley London Borough Council Bill refers to the Second Reading of the Plymouth City Council Bill. Is that correct?

Mr. Speaker: It is a printing error.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Latham: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement during the summer Adjournment.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation to date of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Nellist: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was discussed at the latest meeting held under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): During the parliamentary recess we have had one special meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference, and one regular meeting. I have placed in the Library the statements issued after each meeting. We are making progress with the better co-ordination of security cooperation, and on a range of items falling within the ambit of the conference. At the last meeting particular items included human rights, equality of opportunity in employment, economic and transport issues and the international fund.

Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are large numbers of people on this side of the water, including in this sovereign Parliament, who wish the Anglo-Irish Agreement well and who do not regard themselves as puppets of the Americans, stooges or brainwashed collaborators in trying to proceed along the road of inter-communal reconciliation.

Mr. King: I am grateful for the comments of my hon. Friend. I believe that the continuing evidence of the operation of the conference shows that there is scope for closer co-operation and that there are benefits to be gained


from the objectives of the agreement, such as the reassurance of the majority community, and the reassurance of the minority, community of their rights within the Province. I make that absolutely clear. That has always been my position. That is our objective, and I believe that it is an objective that all people of good will should share.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not time that we saw some real economic improvements in Northern Ireland? Perhaps the Secretary of State will recognise the abysmal economic situation. Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the latest victims of the sectarian murders was Mr. Raymond Mooney, a young man who left behind four children? He was an active member of my union, and he was slaughtered as he came down the hall of the church where he was an active social and welfare worker. Is that not yet another illustration of the sectarian murders being carried out by gangs on both sides? Is the Secretary of State aware that on Saturday there is a trade union conference in Belfast to deal with all forms of intimidation and sectarianism? Does he wish that conference well?

Mr. King: I answer the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question with an unequivocal yes. I certainly strongly applaud the initiative of the trade unions in seeking to give a lead against sectarian intimidation and violence, from whichever quarter it may come. I hope that the whole House will join me in deploring any incidents of sectarian violence, of which, sadly, there have been far too many in recent months, and also any speeches that may tend to incite what is obviously a serious and charged situation and which all too easily can result in sectarian outrages from both sides of the community.
On the economic front, obviously such acts are a crime against the whole community in the Province if they in any way discourage employment. However, there is encouraging news of new investments in the Province, including an anouncement last week by a Japanese company of inward investment to set up a new operation. It is the second Japanese investment in the Province. That is coupled with other substantial investments in existing plants. That is an encouraging side of the picture that is not always so widely reported.

Mr. Nellist: With only three weeks to go to the anniversary of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, is not the reality of the summer months that the backlash against that agreement still continues to claim lives and that the sectarian tensions continue and do not diminsh? Is it not far more hopeful that 4,000 Department of Health and Social Security workers went on strike a few weeks ago — a united strike of Catholic and Protestant workers against intimidation — and that on Saturday the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is organising a conference to unite workers? Are they not far more hopeful signs than the Anglo-Irish Agreement that workers can be united in the North against all sectarian and paramilitary groups operating in the area?

Mr. King: I applaud the way in which workers, including those in the DHSS, have refused to be intimidated by paramilitary groups and have stood against intimidation from whichever extreme it might come. The Anglo-Irish Agreement is based on exactly the twin pillars I referred to: to reassure the majority of the community

of the security of their position based on the principle of consent, and to reassure the minority of their absolute entitlement to equality of treatment in Northern Ireland. It is that basis which offers the best hope for the people to come together against sectarian hatreds and terrorist violence which seek to divide the communities.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my right hon. Friend not understand that many of us feel that the sectarian murders and the intimidation, about which two Opposition Members have spoken, are the consequence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement? As my right hon. Friend has spoken, as Irish Ministers have spoken, of benefits to follow, how long will we have to wait for those benefits?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend knows better than anybody the history of violence in Ireland. The suggestion that sectarian killings have started since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement ignores the fact that these have tragically defaced the face of Ireland for far too long. It does not do my hon. Friend credit, in view of the respect that I have for him and for his knowledge, for example, of the security situation, for him to suggest that there can be an overnight or instant improvement. He knows, and his knowledge makes it unavoidable for him to recognise this, that it will take time to get improvements in cooperation and trust between the security forces in the North and the South if we are to get that genuine improvement in security.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: What does the Secretary of State regard as the prospect for the European convention against terrorism, the ratification of which was one of the promises that accompanied the making of the agreement?

Mr. King: A debate is taking place in the Dail, the outcome of which will be significant in terms of the further progress of that ratification. I very much hope that it will go forward shortly and that we get it established. The Taoiseach and the Irish Government have made clear their commitment to do just that.

Mr. Stanbrook: Do the Government accept that the Anglo-Irish Agreement will automatically lapse on the election of a new Government in Ireland unless that Government positively accept the agreement?

Mr. King: My hon. Friend is absolutely plumb wrong. I do not know from where he gets that idea, but the agreement stands, and it is binding on successive Irish Governments, as it is binding on successive British Governments, until and unless such time as, after review, any changes might be made. My hon. Friend may have better lawyers than I have, but my advice is the opposite to the view that he appears to hold.

Mr. Mallon: I am reluctant to draw conclusions from the unfortunate deaths of people in Northern Ireland, but I feel it necessary, in the light of the previous question, to ask the Secretary of State to confirm that there have been 56 fatalities as a result of paramilitary activities in the year subsequent to the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, compared to 216 in the year subsequent to the signing of the Sunningdale agreement. Will he further confirm that of the 37 people who were not members of the security forces or the Provisional IRA who were killed in that period, the majority were killed by Loyalist paramilitary groupings and that their deaths had no border connection whatsoever?

Mr. King: I can confirm those figures. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that they are tragically high and that the House will share that view. The reality is, sadly, that the number of deaths in Northern Ireland can often be almost an accident on the margin. In other words, some incidents that could be serious and lead to a serious loss of life can sometimes be prevented. By itself, that is not necessarily the sole indicator of the level of violence.
I take a serious view of, and do not underrate, the problem. I accept that the level of violence is higher than it was last year, but I recognise that this is part of the determined efforts by the two parts of the community deliberately to seek to exploit the situation. I am under no illusion but that the IRA is deliberately enhancing its campaign of violence because it fears the agreement and is seeking to excite Loyalist opposition, and the Loyalist extremists are themselves guilty of a number of serious crimes.

Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a growing sense of despair and frustration among many ordinary and decent Unionists at the intransigence of their elected representatives? Will he clearly warn those people who are toying with the prospect of putting the bully boys on to the streets of Belfast on the anniversary of the Hillsborough agreement that they will be worthy only of the contempt of the people whom they claim to represent?

Mr. King: I share the real concern felt about some of the methods of opposition exercised by some people in their hostility to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have made clear my support and belief in the Union. I believe that the Union is made more secure by the recognition of the principle of consent, that the Union cannot be affected against the wishes of a majority in Northern Ireland, and that that is accepted in the Republic as well as in the United Kingdom. My worry about the tactics being employed by some is that the threat to the Union will come more from the misguided antics of some who call themselves Loyalists than from any possible implied threat from the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Meadowcroft: What evidence does the Secretary of State have that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is gaining greater acceptance among the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: I recognise that the agreement has not obviously commanded acceptance or enthusiasm among the majority community. However, the minority community recognises the determined effort which is being made, which was part of the purpose of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to ensure that their rights and entitlements are recognised and appreciated and that there is a proper opportunity for their views to be heard. That is understood and appreciated. I accept that there is a need for a much better understanding with the Unionist community about the merits and advantages which can flow for it out of the agreement. The present difficulty is that we cannot seek to examine the fears and concerns of people who are not prepared to talk and who are not—with one exception —even prepared to debate the issues in this sovereign Chamber of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Archer: With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), does he agree that the best way to fulfil the expectations of those who welcomed the agreement because they thought it would provide redress

for some of their problems, and to allay the fears of those who see the agreement as sinister, would be to demonstrate that the agreement is intended to make practical contributions to bread and butter issues? People have to eat, whatever their sectarian affiliations. Should not sensible ideas for economic co-operation now be appearing?

Mr. King: I am certainly anxious to see how, in a number of areas, we can develop such matters. For example, the hon. Gentleman will note that I referred to economic and transport issues. Transport costs is an issue which is common to the whole of the island of Ireland in terms of being competitive in world markets. There must be an efficient transport system across the Irish sea. Developments in this and other areas are being closely examined at present. We are considering both sea and air links.

USA (Extradition Treaty)

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress in the United States of America resulting from his discussions there concerning extradition of Irish Republican Army suspects wanted by the police in the United Kingdom.

Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Nicholas Scott): On 17 July the United States Senate approved the United States-United Kingdom supplementary extradition treaty by an overwhelming majority. This is an important step forward in our mutual fight against the evils of terrorism. Orders to enable the supplementary treaty to be ratified will shortly be brought before the House.

Mr. Adley: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a matter for congratulation for the Administrations on both sides of the Atlantic? Is this success not epitomised by the extradition to this country of William Quinn? Can my hon. Friend confirm that this is the first time that a terrorist suspect has been extradited to this country? Will my hon. Friend please make sure that good care is taken of the documentation and administration so that the police work on both sides of the Atlantic is not frustrated?

Mr. Scott: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he sought in the last part of his question. I am sure that the House will welcome the vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in the full Senate, where the treaty attracted widespread and bipartisan support. The House should recognise that the passage of the supplementary treaty demonstrates the value of the very closest bilateral and multilateral co-operation in the fight against terrorism. I welcome the fact that that is going beyond the transatlantic concept. Wider co-operation will improve everyone's chances of defeating terrorism in the long run.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend welcome the cooperation of the Dutch authorities in their moves towards the extradition of MacFarland and Kelly, the two prisoners who excaped from the Maze prison?

Mr. Scott: The whole House will welcome the decision of the Dutch courts. The judgment is complex and we are studying it very carefully. Co-operation with the Dutch authorities in this matter has been excellent, and they have made a considerable contribution towards improving international co-operation against terrorism.

Security

Mr. Proctor: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on security in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation within the Province.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 3 July, 16 civilians and nine members of the security forces have died in incidents arising from the security situation. But for the courage and dedication of members of the security forces, and the public-spirited actions of a number of civilians, these tragic totals would have been even greater.
The unstinting efforts of the security forces continue to achieve results. So far this year 521 people have been charged with serious offences and 170 weapons, 15,700 rounds of ammunition, and 3,400 lb of explosives have been recovered.

Mr. Proctor: As co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Conference, will my right hon. Friend say whether there is any validity in Dr. FitzGerald's claim that evidence to have been given against alleged terrorists by Angela Whorisky was withdrawn by the Director of Public Prosecutions because of representations that Dr. FitzGerald had made in the Anglo-Irish Conference? Will he confirm that Angela Whorisky did not herself withdraw any evidence and that the Irish Republic has now been given the right to interfere in the judicial proceedings of Northern Ireland?

Mr. King: In response to my hon. Friend's last point, of course not. Certainly no Irish Minister or the Taoiseach would dream of claiming any such thing. Any individual case is a matter for the Law Officers and the prosecuting authorities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has issued a statement in this connection.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the figures that his Department gave me about increases in violence arising in the 11 months after the signing of the Anglo-Irish accord compared with the figures for violence in the 12 months before the Anglo-Irish accord show that, apart from injuries, there has been no real significant increase and that there has been a marked decrease in the number of shootings and bombings? Therefore, in spite of the hysteria from the extreme Provisionals and the extreme Unionists, one is able to say that there has been no real material worsening of the security position as a result of the accord and that there has been a marked improvement in respect of the finding of bombs, caches and so on.

Mr. King: As is well known, the figure for killings is about the same this year as it was for the whole of last year, but, against that, it is very much lower than some years ago. I take no comfort from that, because I know that the whole House will share my view that the figures are far too high. The hon. Gentleman is right about the success of the security forces. The House may be aware of the recovery of some very dangerous weapons indeed only in recent days. There has also been success in recovering a certain amount of explosives and weapons.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the big increase in violence since the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been in the number of sectarian assassinations by Loyalist paramilitaries? On the general security situation, what information is he willing to share with us about links between elected Loyalist politicians who are represented in this House and those paramilitary organisations? For example, at the Bingham funeral of a man who was buried with full UVF paraphernalia on his coffin, members of the Democratic Unionist party had called at his house and openly shown support for that kind of paramilitary activity. When will the right hon. Gentleman denounce that as even handedly as he denounces Sinn Fein politicians?

Mr. King: I have done that on a number of occasions. The hon. Lady is fair and she will know that on previous occasions I have deplored the fact that there are any hon. Members in this House who have any association whatsoever with paramilitary activities. I have made that absolutely clear. The House will be aware that there have been a number of serious incidents, including a number of serious paramilitary incidents and incitement to sectarian violence. Although there has been such an increase, there is no question but that the IRA views the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a great threat to its activities. The cooperation of the British and Irish Governments in this connection is a threat to the IRA. There is no doubt that it is seeking to escalate violence and to destroy the agreement. Some people try to oppose the agreement because they do not understand what it means. The IRA is seeking to oppose the agreement because it understands all too well what it means.

Marches

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the policing of marches in the Province during the summer months.

Mr. Scott: I am sure the whole House will recognise that the Royal Ulster Constabulary's skilful and highly professional handling of the very large number of marches during what was undoubtedly a tense period in the Province proved very successful. I am sure the House would wish to congratulate it on its efforts, which, coupled with the restraint and good sense of the overwhelming majority of the community, ensured that almost all parades passed off without serious incident.

Mr. Bruinvels: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. Although I recognise that there is a need for a large number of these marches, I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that there has been a tremendous strain on the police forces throughout the summer. They have not been helped by the "Troops out of Northern Ireland" group campaigning in this country, and Sinn Fein councillors, both in Northern Ireland and in some areas of Britain, doing their best to undermine what is happening.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the police need everyone's support? There should be far better cooperation over the arrangements for future marches. The number of marches should he limited to ensure that the Province is adequately policed throughout the summer and in other months.

Mr. Scott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I agree very much with the thrust of his


questions. We ought to bear in mind that rather more than 2,000 parades took place in Northern Ireland during the marching season, and that only 70 resulted in any sort of disorder. I very much agree that the need to police these parades, especially when there is a threat of violence, diverts police resources from their main task of maintaining law and order and their continuing battle against terrorism. I urge everyone to co-operate as fully as possible with the police in these matters.

Mr. Duffy: Does the Minister agree that the job of policing such sensitively and provocatively routed marches into Catholic areas as took place in Portadown in July would be eased if the RUC's responsible approach to the parade had been matched by that of the organisers? Some of the Unionist Members who normally sit on the Bench to my left, notably the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) publicly endorsed at that time a well-known troublemaker, Mr. Seawright, who believes that all Catholics should be incinerated, even though the RUC felt obliged to ban him from that parade.

Mr. Scott: It is incumbent upon everyone in Northern Ireland involved in these types of parades to co-operate fully with the police. I hope that we can move towards a situation in Northern Ireland where it is accepted that people do not march in areas where they are not welcome. That is a principle we should seek to establish. It would also be helpful to the police if those who organise Republican marches in Northern Ireland would give proper notice of them and co-operate with the police.

Anglo-Irish Agreement

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with representatives of policial parties in Northen Ireland concerning the form and progress of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Tom King: I and my hon. Friend the Minister of State have met the leaders of the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party for that purpose on a number of occasions. As I have repeatedly said, we should like to have discussions with representatives of Unionist parties too, but unfortunately they have not yet felt able to do so.

Mr. Maclennan: In answer to an earlier question the Secretary of State spoke of progress on human rights being made under the agreement with the Irish Government. Has he thought it right to put forward the proposals of the Official Unionists that there should be a Bill of Rights in Northern Ireland, or the proposal of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights that the European convention on human rights should be incorporated into the law of the land to give a remedy in our courts?

Mr. King: We have made it clear that we see real difficulties about a Bill of Rights, because inevitably it would involve the whole of the United Kingdom, with all the problems that that might entail, and the connected issues, which have often been debated. At the most recent conference we said that it might be helpful to have a joint declaration on human righs, which might be an affirmation by both Governments. The matter is being studied at present.

Mr. Gow: Has my right hon. Friend seen the text of the speech made by Mr. Charles Haughey at Bodenstown on the 12th of this month, in which he said that in the 12 months since the Anglo-Irish Agreement had been signed the position of Nationalists in the North had seriously worsened? In the discussions to which my right hon. Friend has just referred, have any representations of the sort made by Mr. Charles Haughey been made by the SDLP and other parties in the North?

Mr. King: No, Sir. I have seen Mr. Charles Haughey's comments as well as the comments of many Nationalists, who clearly do not share that view.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no self-respecting Member of this House would accept a situation in which the representation of the rights and interests of a section of his constituents is vested by international treaty in a foreign power?

Mr. King: That is simply not true, if I may say so to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I would have expected to be more accurate in the matter. To imply that those rights and interests are vested without the opportunity to put forward views, something which in no way deprives others of the opportunity to put forward views — as if the rights had been permanently transferred — is total distortion and an incorrect interpretation of that agreement.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the event of a change of Government in the Republic, the Anglo-Irish Agreement could be renegotiated and, if so, whether in that process all the political parties in the North could be included in the negotiation?

Mr. King: The agreement itself provides for the opportunity for review, which would be after three years, or earlier at the request of either party. Obviously any review would be conducted between Governments, but, as I have made clear, I would envisage the opportunity to be there for anybody who wished to do so to put forward any views that he liked. That opportunity exists now, and I am sorry that the Unionist party has not felt able to take advantage of it.

Security

Mr. McNamara: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will next be meeting the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary to discuss security matters.

Mr. Tom King: I have regular meetings with the Chief Constable and the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland to discuss policy issues of common concern in the security field. It is not my practice to give details of the timing of those meetings.

Mr. McNamara: Can the Secretary of State inform the House whether at those meetings he discussed with the Chief Constable the orders given to special branches of the RUC about a shoot-to-kill policy in border areas, orders given to members of the RUC to lie at public trials, orders given to members of the RUC to make incursions into the territory of the Republic of Ireland, or the decision of the Chief Constable to refuse to give Mr. Stalker either the tape or transcript of the tape of what took place in the shootings in that barn? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear


in mind that even though criminal actions may be brought against individuals on that matter, it does not exonerate the Government from coming to the House and giving a full, frank statement of all that occurred when those matters are outwith particular circumstances in Northern Ireland but concern the rule of law in the whole kingdom?

Mr. King: The hon. Member asks me about meetings with the Chief Constable. There is a specific question on the Order Paper relating to the Sampson-Stalker report, which will be dealt with shortly.

Mr. McQuarrie: When my right hon. Friend meets the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, will he take the opportunity to look at the files on security in past years with a view to gaining information for the future with particular reference to the comments that have been attributed to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) in respect of the assassination of Airey Neave and the right hon. Gentleman's comment that outside forces were perhaps responsible for that assassination?

Mr. King: The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) will have to answer for his own statements. All I would say is that I know that this is not the first time that he has sought to advance this particular conspiracy theory.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: When the Secretary of State next meets the Chief Constable, will he update him on the work that is being done both in his Department and in the Home Department relating to the availability of kidnap insurance? Inquiries are taking place, but what has happened during the parliamentary recess? We were told that some initiative would he taken this year. Where are we in the debate?

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I should be grateful if he would address his question to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual fairness, agree that the Opposition have been at pains throughout the Stalker episode not to overdramatise it? But has there not been an accumulation in responsible newspapers of allegations which, if they are true, cannot be condoned by the authorities of a civilised country and which, if they are false, ought to be laid to rest? In view of the call from the National Council for Civil Liberties and Amnesty International for a full inquiry, is it not clear that to ignore the situation will not make it go away? Until the poison is removed, must it not continue to fester?

Mr. King: In view of the seriousness of the point that has been raised, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the House will forgive me if I give perhaps a rather fuller reply to the question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
I am informed that the first part of the report of the inquiry that was begun by Mr. Stalker and completed by Mr. Sampson was submitted by the latter to the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary yesterday. The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland has also received a copy. I understand that this part of the report covers the incident on 24 November 1982 in which Mr. Michael Tighe was shot dead. Also, I understand that Mr. Sampson hopes to submit as soon as possible a second part, which will address the associated issues connected with all the cases that are under investigation. As is the usual practice with police reports covering criminal

investigations, it will not be published. On the basis of Mr. Sampson's report, along with any comments from the Chief Constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland will decide what directions to give as to criminal proceedings.
The Attorney-General has requested the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland to inform him fully with regard to the facts reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions and to consult the Attorney-General before any directions are given. An additional section of Mr. Sampson's report will deal with matters concerning the management of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
I propose to make a statement to the House on these aspects at the earliest opportunity. It will, however, be understood that I have no role in the conduct of criminal proceedings, nor would it be appropriate for any comments to be made upon the individual investigations involved until all such proceedings are completed.

Mr. Mallon: Will the Secretary of State confirm that when the three incidents took place, which are now known as the shoot-to-kill incidents that were investigated by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson, the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland was absent from Northern Ireland during two of those incidents, although the situation was very tense, and that during all three incidents the head of the CID in Northern Ireland was absent from Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State inform the House of where the ultimate responsibility lies when something goes terribly wrong in a police service that is under a cloud of conspiracy such as this?

Mr. King: The House will know, as I sought to make clear in my earlier reply, that I cannot comment on the criminal or disciplinary aspects of this inquiry. I have made it clear to the House that the first section of Mr. Sampson's report was delivered yesterday to the Chief Constable, with a copy to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. That is the first step. I have also made clear the action that I will seek to take to keep the House informed on these matters of public interest.

Community Groups

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the current status of funding of community groups previously funded by the Belfast city council; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Action by a Government-appointed commissioner on 8 October released city council funds to community groups in Belfast for the rest of the current financial year. I regret that this action became necessary as a result of the non-cooperative attitude of a majority of the Unionist councillors on Belfast city council.

Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that there are about 40 of those voluntary community groups and that the Government knew in advance that the Unionists would refuse to service people because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that people are losing their jobs in those groups? Is it not a fact also that the Government knew well in advance that the money had run out, yet they were tardy in giving money to those groups? May we have an assurance that that will not occur again?

Dr. Mawhinney: No, I could not accept that. The responsibility for funding such groups remains with the Belfast city council. Therefore, the Government could not act until it became clear, after the end of September, that the council was not going to act. I can confirm that the action of the Commission on Housing has involved authorising running costs for 41 groups involving grants totalling £395,815.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Neil Thorne: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. Following Questions in the House I shall be going to sign the book of condolence opened for President Machel of Mozambique.

Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend find time to reaffirm her Government's commitment to abhorring violence in Northern Ireland and to condemn the action of three local authorities in London which have entertained Sinn Fein, the political wing of the IRA, this week—Haringey on Monday, Lambeth on Tuesday and Hackney last night, all of which, needless to say, are Labour-controlled local authorities?

The Prime Minister: We utterly condemn violence in Northern Ireland and do everything we can do to eradicate it. I join my hon. Friend in completely deploring invitations to any organisation which supports or perpetrates violence and therefore gives a platform to those who advocate violence. We think that that is completely wrong, and I agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Kinnock: I firmly associate myself with the view that the Prime Minister expressed concerning violence in pursuit of all ends, including political ends, and say that those who have the immense dishonesty to fight with a ballot box in one hand and a rifle in the other have no place in democratic politics.
While this month's balance of payments statistics show some welcome improvement on last month's disastrous figures, they still reveal that we have been in deficit this year for the first time since we started to receive oil money, and they further record manufacturing trade figures that are the worst in all history. Does the Prime Minister really think that she can combat that grave position by raising interest rates, raising industrial costs and increasing home payments, since that appears to be the only economic policy she has?

The Prime Minister: Certainly the balance of trade figures published today are better than those for last month. The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that exports have risen, which is good. One of the problems of securing a good balance of payments, especially on current account, is that of keeping unit costs down. The biggest aggravating factor for unit costs is unit wage costs, which, in this country, are rising faster than elsewhere. That is a matter to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman and the trade unions will give their attention and not seek to get more out in wages than is put in in productivity.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the Prime Minister announcing her intention to establish some form of incomes control policy, contrary to everything that she has ever said, or will she concentrate on the basic causes of our loss of 27 per cent. in competitiveness over the past seven years, which have been the restrictions on demand and the massive costs that she has imposed on industry by a permanent policy of high interest rates?

The Prime Minister: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the first part of his question when he then says that there are restrictions on demand? There are greatly increased imports because there are no restrictions on imports.

Mr. Amess: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the rate support grant settlement is such that those local authorities which manage their affairs prudently will be able to keep any rate increases low? Will she also join me in welcoming the fact that the Labour party has just lost control of Basildon district council because of the resignation of Labour councillors concerned about imprudent spending and the political posturing of local authorities such as Brent, Haringey, Hackney and Lambeth?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, this year's rate support grant settlement is generous and he will be well aware that the Local Authority Audit Commission has given examples of ways of making local authorities much more efficient. I congratulate Basildon on what has happened and I am sure that it will be beneficial to all ratepayers.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Government's own report — [Interruption] — to the regional development commissioner of the European Commission stated clearly that the prospects for reducing unemployment were "frighteningly bleak"? In view of that, how can she continue to announce cuts in railway, local authority and housing expenditure in the very areas of the country which the report ackowledges need extra help?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the figures in the European regional development fund application, the unemployment totals on which the report is based are taken from the 1986 public expenditure White Paper. They are assumptions, not forecasts or predictions, and they follow the same practice as that adopted by the Labour Government. Figures for the individual regions assume that the existing regional pattern of unemployment continues. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government's record on infrastructure expenditure is far better than that of the Government whom he supported.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Will the Prime Minister explain the Government's monetary policy? The City of London does not understand it, financial commentators do not understand it and now even the Governor of the Bank of England does not seem to understand it. Will she explain it?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman will give me longer than I have at Question Time, I will do so


gladly. I do not think that other people are as ignorant as he seems to think. The monetary policy is to keep downward pressure on inflation. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that inflation is far lower than any level that his Government ever managed to achieve.

Mrs. McCurley: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. McCurley: Following my right hon. Friend's successful visit to Barrow and Furness in September, where she laid down the keel for the new submarine for Trident, can she reaffirm the Government's commitment to a nuclear defence policy with Trident as its base? Would she care to comment on the fact that no amount of games down on the farm with Roget's Thesaurus can remedy a weak and discredited alliance policy?

The Prime Minister: I reaffirm our independent nuclear deterrent policy and that Trident will come into operation. The first submarine is now being built at Vickers yard in Barrow and Furness. I agree with my hon. Friend about the policies of certain other parties. I do not believe that the British people will take seriously a political party which, on a subject as important as the British deterrent, claims that it is committed to maintaining it, but cannot agree on how to do so.

Mr. Chris Smith: Can the Prime Minister tell us, in relation to her earlier answer on the regional report to the EEC, what precisely is the difference between an assumption and a forecast or prediction?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the public expenditure surveys he will see that we never make forecasts for successive years. We do the best that we can with the immediately following year and then, in the years after that, the present figure automatically continues. That has been the practice and it was first announced in 1978 by the Government whom the hon. Member supported.

Mr. Cormack: Will my right hon. friend seek an opportunity, today if possible, to see the remarkably moving and accurate film "Cry Hungary" which the BBC screened last night? Is this not an appropriate moment to remind people throughout the free world that no country under the domination of the Soviet Union has had the opportunity to opt even for neutrality?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, We should all recall that, I believe, 30 years ago today, the Soviet tanks rolled in and crushed the attempts of the Hungarian people to gain for themselves some greater freedom. I hope that we shall remember it vividly, be grateful for our liberty and be determined to defend it, as this Government are.

Mr. Wareing: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wareing: The right hon. Lady will appreciate that one of the factors causing a deficit in our balance of payments is Britain's loss in trade in terms of shipping. In 1979, when the right hon. Lady became Prime Minister, we had 1,200 vessels, and now we are down to about 600.

At that time we had 80,000 seafaring jobs and now we are down to 40,000. Will the right hon. Lady now tell us what she and her Government will do about that?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the problems with shipbuilding the world over is that every country has given shipbuilding so many subsidies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shipping."] I will come on to shipping. There have been so many subsidies that there are now two years' supplies of ships swinging on the buoys. With regard to shipping, one of the problems is that the National Union of Seamen has priced itself out of the market— [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen always react in the same way to the truth. The NUS has priced itself out of employment. Consequently, the work has gone elsewhere, and that is a tragedy, I agree. The remedy lies in its hands.

Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern for my constituent, Miss Maureen McGoldrick, and the children in her care in a Brent school? The governors of the school have found her totally innocent of accusations of racism, as has the High Court, yet Brent Labour council insists on persecuting her, to the great detriment of her school, the children and their parents.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively. I believe I am right in saying that an appeal has been entered and, therefore, I am circumscribed in what I can say.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 23 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago and have given several times since.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Prime Minister recall that when she was Secretary of State for Education and Science she made a series of speeches in favour of nursery education? For almost 10 years after that nursery education in Britain was steadily expanded. It now appears that the Government have abandoned all plans to improve Britain's nursery education. What steps will she take to discuss with Ministers with responsibility for education ways in which we can try to achieve the same sort of nursery provision as the French?

The Prime Minister: I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman managed to get his question in. I am very keen on nursery education. Since January 1979 the proportion of three and four-year-olds at school has increased from 37 to 43 per cent. in January 1986.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Labour party's new booklet about public investment? It is on sale at some newsagents, but, not surprisingly, it has failed to make the bestseller list—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister can only reply to questions for which she has responsibility.

Mr. Wardle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party — [Interruption.] — is as bereft of sound financial policies in 1986 as it was in 1976?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Prime Minister aware that our merchant fleet has shrunk because, unlike the British


Government, which is indifferent, our competitors assist their merchant navies? If the right hon. Lady is not aware of the consequences for trade and industry, will she at least bear in mind what will happen to the defence of this country if our Merchant Navy is not given assistance?

The Prime Minister: Obviously we are considering that very carefully, but the main problem is that the National

Union of Seamen has demanded salaries and restrictive practices that have priced its members out of British shipping. That is very damaging for our shipping.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises out of questions.

Mr. Speaker: I will hear it after the private notice question.

NATO Ministers (Meeting)

Mr. Denzil Davies: (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the NATO Ministers' meeting held at Gleneagles.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): At the NATO nuclear planning group meeting at Gleneagles on 21 and 22 October, NATO Defence Ministers had wide-ranging discussions on arms control and defence matters.
The Ministers extended their warm appreciation to the President of the United States on his conduct of the talks at Reykjavik and fully endorsed his bold attempt to seek far-reaching arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. They expressed their continued support for the efforts of the United States and the United Kingdom to maintain the effectiveness and credibility of their nuclear deterrent capabilities.
The Ministers remain deeply concerned about continuing Soviet efforts to upgrade and expand their military capabilities across the board. They noted with particular concern Soviet efforts involving the full range of strategic forces, shorter and longer range intermediate nuclear forces, and short-range nuclear forces, including artillery. They also noted with concern the major Soviet effort in continuing improvements in strategic and tactical anti-missile systems.
The Ministers reviewed a number of issues and nuclear-related programmes and reconfirmed our policy and planning related to NATO's nuclear forces. They agreed that both the force structure itself and the conceptual planning underpinning it are essential components for maintaining a credible deterrent posture.
A copy of the official communiqué of the Gleneagles meeting has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Davies: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, we think it very remiss of the Secretary of State not to answer, or come to the House to explain the consequences of a very important meeting. Moreover, the Minister did not volunteer a statement. We had to drag a statement out of Ministers by means of a private notice question.
Will the Minister answer three questions? First, on intermediate missiles, will he confirm that the Government still fully support the zero option? It was, I believe, agreed by NATO five years ago at Gleneagles and means that, provided that the Russians remove all their SS20s from Europe, NATO will remove all cruise and Pershing 2 missiles. Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no back sliding on the zero option or an attempt to link it with short-range missiles in central Europe?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us whether the Government fully support the offer made by President Reagan at Reykjavik to eliminate all strategic nuclear weapons within 10 years? As the Government apparently had a say in the negotiating brief for Reykjavik, I take it that they fully support that offer.
Thirdly, on the SDI and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, will the Minister tell us which interpretation the Government support? Do they say that only laboratory research is allowable under the treaty or do they believe that the testing of laser beams and shooting down rockets with rockets in the atmosphere is allowed under the treaty?

Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State much regrets that he is not able to make the statement in person, but he has a long-standing official commitment in Barrow in Furness—[Interruption.] On this side of the House we welcome ministerial attention in Barrow in Furness.
As for not volunteering a statement, the right hon. Member of Llanelli (Mr. Davies) will know that it has been normal practice over a considerable period to place copies of official communiqués in the Library.
I can certainly confirm that it is the Government's position that we should seek the INF zero option or equal numbers above zero, subject, of course, to effective verification procedures and the necessary agreement on collateral constraints on the shorter-range systems.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second question about the elimination of strategic nuclear weapons, the Government's position is as we have always stated it. There is obviously a direct relationship between major reductions in strategic nuclear forces arid conventional forces and it is essential that the two are seen together.
On the right hon. Gentleman's point about the ABM, treaty, he will be aware that we are not a party to that treaty, but the Government's position is that there should be conformity with the ABM treaty.

Sir Peter Blaker: Was it not formerly the position of the Soviet Union that an agreement on intermediate range nuclear forces in Europe could be made without its being linked to an agreement on the SDI? Has the Soviet Union changed that position? If so, is not that rather regrettable?

Mr. Stanley: It was our understanding that the Soviet Union had agreed to make an INF agreement free standing, but it appears to have gone back on that position at Reykjavik. We very much regret that fact and believe that we should strive to make a free-standing INF agreement.

Mr. A. J. Beith: As Europe has every reason to be concerned about Soviet conventional superiority and about battlefield nuclear weapons, why do the Government not point out to President Reagan that it would be far better if the SDI were kept in a laboratory, especially as the Soviets are so concerned about SDI that they would be prepared to pay a much higher price to stop it and might be persuaded to include in that price the very reductions that are essential to Europe's security?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that the hon. Member knows that the SDI is only a research programme and that it follows on the heels of a very extensive and long-standing research programme by the Soviet Union into ABM systems.

Mr. Reg Prentice: May I press my right hon. Friend to say a little more about the zero option and suggest that at least in parallel with that option there should be a search for mutual reductions in shorter-range nuclear weapons and conventional weapons? Otherwise, there will seem to many of us to be much validity in the doubts attributed to General Rogers that we may become more vulnerable if intermediate weapons are removed without other reductions.

Mr. Stanley: I assure my right hon. Friend that, as I said in answer to a previous question, we are fully apprised of that point. It has been a long-standing element of the


NATO position that agreement on long-range INF systems must be coupled with collateral constraints on shorter-range systems.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: May I draw the Minister's attention to a report in today's issue of The Guardian which says that his right hon. Friend said that if an INF deal could be achieved that would be fine? There is no mention of any linkages to the SS21s, SS22s, SS23s, or Scud or even short battlefield systems. The Minister has heard the anxiety expressed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and he murmured a qualification to my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
It is important that the House receives clarification about how conditional is the Secretary of State's position on the zero option. Is it really a zero option or are there further qualifications?

Mr. Stanley: I do not think I can add to what I have already said. It has been a long-standing position of the West that we should try to go for the zero option, but at the time when the zero option was made it was made clear that if it was not possible to negotiate zero-zero on both sides, it would be better to have equal numbers on both sides and reduce the large number of SS20 deployments which face the West.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been extremely unwise for President Reagan to give in on SDI, especially since the Russians have been making enormous progress in outer space with their longstay platforms and in the light of the point that he has made that the Russians are known to have carried out significant research in SDI?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend's point is entirely valid. The American SDI research programme has to be seen in relation to the extensive and long-standing programme that has been conducted by the Soviet Union. If the American Administration had not persevered with the SDI research programme I doubt very much whether we would have under way the most comprehensive and radical arms control negotiations that have taken place for many years.

Mr. Denis Healey: Torpedoed by SDI.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we return to the important but unanswered third question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)? Does the Minister's phrase "in conformity with the ABM treaty" mean that it is simply the interpretation of the Government's laboratory testing or, as my right hon. Friend says, is it laser rocket with laser rocket? Which is it? The Government surely have a view on that.

Mr. Stanley: The Government were not and are not a party to the ABM treaty and for that reason the detailed matter of interpretation is not a matter for this Administration. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we attach great importance to the maintenance of the ABM treaty.

Mr. John Browne: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the United States SDI programme is a trump card in the hands of the West and that even the threat that the United States will overtake the Soviet SDI programme has brought the Soviets to the negotiating

table for the first time in decades to talk seriously about disarmament? Does my right hon. Friend not also feel that President Reagan played that card correctly at Reykjavik by not yielding to the first offers from the Soviet Union and that the Soviets are likely to be back again with far more far-reaching and effective offers?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with the broad thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. If the United States simply abandons this research programme it would set the arms control process back rather than take it forward.

Mr. James Lamond: Did the Ministers have before them the paper on general political guidelines and did they accept that paper? If they did, does that make it clear that decisions taken inside NATO, including those about disarmament and the acceptability of disarmament proposals, lie completely within the scope of the elected political leaders of NATO and not within the scope of the chiefs of staff?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the confirmation that he seeks. The updating of the general political guidelines has not meant any reduction whatever in political control.

Sir Anthony Grant: Since the cruise missile programme remains an essential element of NATO defence, was there any discussion at the wide-ranging Gleneagles talks about the security of these missile sites? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that the security of those sites is so important that responsibility for it should be a national rather than a local matter?

Mr. Stanley: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the security of nuclear weapons is regularly considered within NATO and is also considered by the Nuclear Planning Group. I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxiety about responsibility for that security and the local financial burden. I know that those are matters that he has pursued with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has sought to make an equitable arrangement to ensure that local ratepayers do not face a particular burden as a result of the arrangement at Molesworth.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a private notice question, and therefore an extension of Question Time. I shall take one more question from each side.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Minister concede that one of the thrusts put by the United States for SDI was the fact that the Soviets were allegedly breaching the ABM treaty relating to radar equipment and so on? Therefore, the United States had an interpretation of that treaty.
Do the Government now accept that as it was wrong for the Soviets to breach the treaty, it would be more than equally wrong for the United States to do so by testing weapons in space? In view of the sympathy that some Opposition Members have expressed on our relationship with the French, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the French are now willing to join the integrated command structure of NATO?

Mr. Stanley: I can certainly confirm that we would not wish the treaty to be breached. We are very much aware of the concern expressed by the United States about the Soviet violations.
On the hon. Gentleman's opening point, I must put it to him that the impetus behind the SDI stemmed not so much from concern about Soviet violations, but very much from an understanding of the scale, length and implications of a very long-standing intense Soviet research programme into trying to create a possible antiballistic missile system breakout.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Was the impact of the unilateral nuclear proposals of the Labour party on NATO strategy discussed?

Mr. Stanley: I do not believe that such party political matters were discussed in that forum. However, as my hon. Friend is well aware, there is very widespread concern in many NATO countries about the serious way in which the official policies of the Opposition would undermine NATO.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 OCTOBER — Until seven o'clock Opposition Day (18th Allotted Day, 2nd part). There will be a debate on a motion on regional policy in the names of the leaders of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru.
Motions relating to the statements of changes in immigration rules (Cmnd. 9914 and House of Commons Paper No. 584).
TUESDAY 28 OCTOBER—Until seven o'clock, motion on the Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure.
Motion on the British Railways Board (Increase of Compensation) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER—There will be a debate on Westland plc on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Details of relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on EC document 4554/79 relating to commercial agents. Details will be given in the Official Report.
THURSDAY 30 OCTOBER AND FRIDAY 31 OCTOBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Financial Services Bill.
MONDAY 3 NOVEMBER—Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Housing and Planning Bill.
[Relevant documents debate on 29 October: Third report from the Defence Committee 1985–86 — "The Defence Implications of the Future of Westland plc"— House of Commons Paper No. 518, published on Thursday 24 July; fourth report from the Defence Committee 1985–86 —"Westland plc: The Government's Decision Making" — House of Commons paper No. 519, published on Thursday 24 July; Government response to the third and fourth reports from the Defence Committee Session 1985–86, HC 518 and 519, Cmnd. 9916, published on Monday 13 October.
Debate on Wednesday 29 October; European Document 4554/79, "Self employed commercial agents"; reports of European Legislation Committee HC 10-xx (1978–79) para. 10, HC 21-xxv (1985–86) para. 1.]

Mr. Kinnock: Next Monday the House will have the opportunity to debate the changes in immigration rules, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) rightly described as humiliating for visitors and shaming for this country's reputation. The wholly inadequate time that the Government have allocated to debate these serious matters has impelled us to allocate Opposition time as a matter of duty. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in that debate it will be in order for hon. Members to raise the matter of representation to the Home Secretary on individual cases?
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that a full statement is made to the House about the Government's assessment of the outcome of the superpowers meeting in


Reykjavik and its subsequent ramifications for international arms reduction and control? A statement on the summit was made in the House of Lords on 15 October. However, we have still not heard anything directly or formally on the matter in the House of Commons. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman would be willing to repair that deficiency.
The rise in interest rates, which has been followed by rises in mortgage rates, is obviously bad news for people and businesses in this country. Is there to be a statement to the House on the matter or is the Chancellor too afraid to face the House with the consequence of his own policies?

Mr. Biffen: The Chancellor will be making an autumn statement and the matters could arise on that.

Mr. Kinnock: It may be deep winter by then, John.

Mr. Biffen: I must not be tempted, especially this soon after our return, to make any incautious comment.
We might look at the Reykjavik meeting through the usual channels. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it was a meeting of the greatest significance and also one of some fading memory.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the co-operation that has been afforded over time for the debate next Monday on immigration rules. It is my judgment, clearly subject to that of the Chair, that it should be perfectly possibly to deal with the issue of Members' representations.

Mr. Michael Latham: Is my right hon. Friend suggesting that he wants to fit a second order in on Tuesday afternoon before 7 o'clock after the Deacons (Ordination of Women) Measure? If so, I think that he should take some soundings, because he is likely to find that order more controversial than he might have thought.

Mr. Biffen: Yes, and I gather that the Church militant might become controversial. The normal interpretation of the opaque language used on these occasions is that the motion on the British Railways Board (Increase of Compensation) Order is likely to arise at 10 o'clock.

Mr. David Alton: Following the publication of the Department of Trade and Industry's regional development programme, does the Leader of the House agree that it is time that there was a series of debates looking at the problems of those regions, especially the economic black spots? Given that there is high crime, high unemployment and bad housing in the county of Merseyside, does he not agree that an early debate on the problems there is required?

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate that there will be much interest in Merseyside over the next two or three weeks, even more than traditionally. The hon. Gentleman will understand that we will be discussing regional policy in the Scottish and Welsh context on Monday, which those concerned would say was a national situation, and I am sure that the House will want to turn to the wider issues. There really is no available Government time before the prorogation.

Sir Gerard Vaughan: Will my right hon. Friend consider providing time for a short debate on the problem of AIDS?

Mr. Biffen: Clearly, my hon. Friend raises a matter of growing concern and I am sure that there will be anxiety that the matter should be debated. There is no possibility of it being debated before prorogation, but perhaps it is something we can come back to in the next Session.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Will the Leader of the House allow us to have an early debate on the importance of the memorandum of understanding governing the transfer of the results of industrial research from Britain to the United States under the strategic defence initiative? Is he aware that I have in my possession a letter signed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to a leading British company which, if it is true —I hope that the Leader of the House will say today whether it is true — suggests that the Government are soliciting British companies to transfer the results of their secret long-term research to the Americans? That amounts to industrial espionage, industrial sabotage, and, indeed, industrial treachery.

Mr. Biffen: Since this Administration have been accused of industrial sabotage, espionage and treachery, clearly it is a matter that deeply exercises the hon. Gentleman. The best way that I can help, in the first instance, is to have the matter referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Roger Sims: My right hon. friend will be aware that the consultation paper on family courts issued earlier this year has provoked debate among a wide variety of organisations and individuals. Before the Government consider their response to the consultation paper, would it not be appropriate for the House to have an opportunity to discuss it?

Mr. Biffen: I take note of the point, and my hon. Friend will recollect that it is not the first time that he has pressed this view on me. I am sympathetic to his argument, but there is no time before prorogation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange an early debate on the important question of the involvement of the Government, and their interference, with the broadcasting authorities? Will he ensure that if we have such a debate he will mention the matter to the chairmen of the Tory party, both past and present, so that they can explain their role in the recent events surrounding the BBC in particular, and in other matters, including the "Panorama" case?
Perhaps the Leader of the House could also persuade the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls) to come to the debate and explain what role he played in dealing with Abdul Shamji, when he said that he had not been to a meeting when it was apparent that he had? Perhaps he can explain to the House just how much he, as chairman of the Tory Small Business Bureau, played in providing Shamji with sufficient moneys, in the great fiddle at the expense of Johnson Matthey bank and subsequently the taxpayer. Perhaps the Prime Minister can explain her friendship with Abdul Shamji, and so can all the other Tories who assisted him to fiddle the taxpayer right after the Johnson Matthey bank fiasco. As a result of all that, perhaps the Tory party will pay that money back.

Mr. Biffen: I am so glad that the long recess has done nothing to alter the hon. Gentleman's character.

Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.

Mr. Biffen: It is a serious question and the answer is that there is no time for a debate next week. If there were, these wild allegations would he even less convincing the longer that they proceeded.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Stroud area there has been for a long time the strange and distressing existence of—

Mr. George Foulkes: A Member of Parliament.

Sir Anthony Kershaw: —meningitis. I am going on for a long time longer too. This disease causes a great deal of distress and anxiety, especially to mothers of small children, and we do not know much about it. Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services whether anything more than is being done can be done to counteract this great anxiety?

Mr. Biffen: I am aware of the points that have been raised by my hon. Friend; they have been given considerable national publicity. I can well understand the deep concern in his constituency about this matter. I shall take up the matter with my right hon. Friend, as has been requested.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will it be possible, on Monday 3 November, in the debate on the Lords amendments to the Housing and Planning Bill, to debate the Government's slow but consistent erosion of positive planning? Will we be able to debate the Government's use of special development orders, for instance, to enable a scrap shredder to be sited in my constituency next to residential properties, thereby causing nuisance, dust and noise, without the consent of the local authority because planning approval was not needed? Will we be able to debate the Government's use of special development orders to enable sites to be investigated for the disposal of nuclear waste by the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive, without the local authority or residents being consulted? Will we be able to debate why the Government, using special development orders, have picked four sites in safe Tory areas where Tory middle-class protesters are now campaigning, and why the Government have not sent in the riot squad as they would have done if these people had been printers or striking miners on a picket line?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate that what we debate on the Housing and Planning Bill is entirely within the judgment of the Chair, but I am sure that he will display a great ingenuity in the face of that challenge.

Dr. Alan Glyn: In view of the importance of disarmament and defence, will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on the subject so that all parties can state their views in this House before we rise?

Mr. Biffen: Much as I underline the importance of the topic which my hon. Friend mentions, I must say that we have a full legislative programme before prorogation and there is little time left for anything else.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Does the Leader of the House accept that the proposal which has been made by a number of hon. Members that the House should be advised by an office of technology assessment is primarily a question for the House? It would be most

unfortunate if the Prime Minister were to try to kill this proposal before the House had reached a view on the matter.

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's points in mind.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As my right hon. Friend will know that it is the practice for the Leader of the Opposition to say which of the prayers in his name he wishes the Government to find time for among the available days for that purpose, can he tell us whether the Leader of the Opposition has asked for either of the prayers in his name referring to the cereals levy to be debated before they run out of praying time, the deadline for which is Tuesday next week? If the Leader of the Opposition has not done that, will my right hon. Friend give time for praying against the order on the rates of levy and the parent order before time runs out next Tuesday? If not, will my right hon. Friend allow a debate to annul outside the praying time later in the coming week?

Mr. Biffen: As a fellow agricultural Member, I take note of the important point which my hon. Friend has raised. However, I think that the answer is no but I will have to check that. I will be in touch with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Max Madden: Can the Leader of the House confirm that the debate on visas on Monday will take place between 7 pm and 11.30 pm? Can he confirm that a Foreign Office Minister will participate in that debate? Finally, can he tell us the nature of the motion upon which the debate will take place?

Mr. Biffen: The motion will appear and the hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity of seeing it in good time. It is my understanding that the debate will run from 7 pm to 11.30 pm

Mr. Madden: Will there be a Foreign Office Minister?

Mr. John Wilkinson: Several weeks ago Mr. Roy Gibson, the director of the newly created National Space Centre, presented the Government with the centre's view on a space plan for the United Kingdom. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that his hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology comes to the House with a statement about the Government's decision? Even better, will my right hon. Friend allow a debate on such crucial issues as the future of the horizontal take-off and landing system, the future of a European manned space programme and European participation in the American space station programme?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of my hon. Friend's point and I will communicate his views about the desirability of a statement to my hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology.

Mr. Thomas Torney: On the points raised earlier about the prayer against the co-responsibility levy for cereals, is the Leader of the House aware that that matter seriously affects the poultry industry and can cause considerable unemployment? From the Opposition Benches, I appeal to the Leader of the House to find time to debate the issue before prorogation.

Mr. Biffen: I believe that there is more chicken in north Shropshire than in Bradford, so I immediately accept the


seriousness with which the point is addressed. I have said that I will look into the matter, but I am not able to go beyond that.

Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend be able to find time before the Session ends for a debate on Select Committees whose claims have increased, are increasing and, in my view, ought to be diminished?

Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend says. He will appreciate that if he is successful in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to make many of his points on Wednesday.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Has the Leader of the House noticed early-day motion No. 1174?
[That this House congratulates England's hockey team for their excellent performances in the World Cup and also Australia, who won it and regrets that in the otherwise excellent television coverage at no time was the fact mentioned that the revenue and other services were provided by the London Borough of Brent which deserves more credit for the good things it achieves.]
Early-day motion No. 1174 covers a narrow point and I obviously cannot ask the Leader of the House for time to debate the matter because of prorogation. However, may I seek the right hon. Gentleman's advice?
I am trying to give credit to the London borough of Brent for the good things that it does because I have to sit on the Opposition Benches—as the Leader of the House knows — and listen to the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues attacking my borough over many issues time and time again. There is never any question of my being able to bring to the House's attention the good things which Brent does—for example, the world hockey cup final, which, thanks to the London borough of Brent, was very successful. Can the Leader of the House advise me how I can redress the uneven balance of Back-Bench questioning about important matters which affect my borough if I cannot have a debate before prorogation?

Mr. Biffen: There is something rather touching about the hon. Gentleman, with all his years of experience in the House, asking me for advice. I must be modest in respect of that invitation. He represents the virtues of the Labour Brent past. We are now seeing the horrors of the Labour Brent future.

Mr. David Maclean: Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on the nuclear industry? Is he aware of the grave concern in Cumbria that 50,000 jobs could be lost because the main Opposition parties are pledged to destroy our nuclear industry in Sellafield and Barrow in Furness?

Mr. Biffen: I think that there would be much advantage in the House having an early opportunity to debate these matters and for the anti-nuclear policies of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties and of the Labour party to be fully assessed. However, that cannot happen this side of prorogation.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: In view of the inadequate and misleading answer given by the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on the question of the British merchant fleet, will the Leader of the House arrange a

debate as soon as possible based upon the report of the European Economic Community which takes account of the great dangers which face the British maritime industry on such questions as flags of convenience?

Mr. Biffen: I totally reject the strictures of the hon. Gentleman upon my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. However, I agree that the British merchant fleet is a very important topic. There is no prospect of a debate on that topic this side of prorogation, but I am certain that it will feature in our discussions in the new Session.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As some hon. Members are now rising who have not previously risen, I shall try to call them. However, I ask for brief questions, as we have a very heavy day before us.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the recess there have been two serious squats in my constituency, one on a school playing field and the other on land in a residential area? The squats have caused grave nuisance, inconvenience and harm to my innocent constituents who have been unable to find easy and quick legal redress. In the circumstances, can my right hon. Friend give us any hope that the Home Secretary will come to the House and make a statement about further legislation in this area to protect my innocent constituents?

Mr. Biffen: I will certainly pass the point raised by my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I realise that it is of considerable moment to my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The Leader of the House referred to the fact that there is more chicken in Shropshire than in Bradford. I must tell him that there is more duck in Shropshire and I hope that he will not duck this question. If it can be shown to the Leader of the House that senior members of the Government have attempted to influence witnesses in any court case, would he consider that that was a most serious matter demanding the resignation of those hon. Members and an early statement from the Attorney-General?

Mr. Biffen: I would regard that as a most serious matter. I think that the integrity of the charge would be enhanced if it were repeated outside the Chamber.

Mr. Tony Baldry: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the nation's greatest assets is our inventiveness and innovation. He will thus understand the considerable dismay in certain sections of British industry and commerce at the suggestion in yesterday's Daily Telegraph that the Government might be considering dropping the Copyright Bill from the Queen's Speech. Would my right hon. Friend impress upon others that the Copyright Bill is an essential and much-needed piece of legislation which should certainly be included in the Queen's Speech and that time should be found for it in next Session's business?

Mr. Biffen: I am aware of what my hon. Friend says, but I am sure he will realise—particularly at this time—that convention requires a delicacy on my part in respect of these matters and that therefore I can say nothing.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House aware of the enormous amount of


administrative confusion and inefficiency in London local government that has arisen since the abolition of the GLC? Is he also aware that it is almost impossible for hon. Members to get any information from the London Residuary Body which is charged with many of the previous functions of the GLC? When can the House expect to receive the annual report of the London Residuary Body, and can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we will be able to debate that report on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised about the report and I shall be in touch with him.

Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Transport's proposal to complete the Winchester section of the M3 will cause a massive environmental blight to that listed city by entering an area of outstanding natural beauty, severing sites of special scientific interest and destroying two scheduled ancient monuments? Is he also aware that the two national custodians of the sites — the Countryside Commission and the Inspectorate of Scheduled Ancient Monuments —did not even participate in the recent public inquiry? Does he agree that of course there is a need for an urgent completion of the M3 motorway but not at any cost, particularly to the very special environment of the ancient and listed city of Winchester? This has reached almost scandalous proportions. Can we have a full debate rather than just an Adjournment debate on this subject?

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Very good. Very good.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend has obviously attracted support.

Mr. Faulds: I am glad some of you care.

Mr. Biffen: I understand the point that my hon. Friend argues, which must be of the greatest importance in his constituency. Clearly, there is no prospect of it featuring in a debate between now and prorogation, but I very much hope that he will have his opportunities in the new Session of Parliament.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate an early opportunity next week to discuss the unwelcome presence in this country of 10 Sinn Fein councillors, two of whom have been to Leicester? Does he accept that this has caused great concern to many people? As we are debating visas next week, does not he agree that Sinn Fein councillors should never be allowed into this country, that they are advocating violence against this country and that the Labour party through its Labour Committee on Ireland and its "Troops Out of Ireland" campaign is doing nothing to give confidence to the Chief Constable and all those in Northern Ireland who care about the security and future of this country?

Mr. Biffen: I am sad that Leicester should be a magnet of all these difficulties, but my hon. Friend raises something that gives rise to real public concern. That is the relationship that exists between some of our conventional politicians and Sinn Fein whose operation in the Republic, Northern Ireland and mainland Britain gives rise to deep concern. I do not believe that there are any explicit circumstances under which my hon. Friend can raise this matter next week, but none the less I have great faith that he will find a way of making sure that it receives public attention.

Viscount Cranborne: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have noted with distress the ignorant way in which the management of Sealink Ltd sacked several hundred of my constituents at 24 hours notice in spite of consistent assurances over the preceeding months and years that it would do nothing of the kind. As the Government actually sold Sealink to someone who is clearly not qualified to operate a venture of this kind, will my right hon. Friend try to provide some Government time so that we may have a debate on the matter?

Mr. Biffen: I much regret that there is simply no Government time available before prorogation. I suggest that my hon. Friend might like to try his own initiative to obtain an Adjournment debate.

BBC (Court Case)

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an inquiry into evidence of interference with witnesses in the case of Hamilton and Howarth v. the BBC.
You will, Mr. Speaker, recall that in reply to my point of order on Tuesday you said that allegations of interference with witnesses were "pure speculation". I must draw your attention to a letter addressed to "Mr. Selwyn Gummer", the then chairman of the Conservative party, dated 24 November 1984, from the National Young Conservatives. The writer states:
Loyalty to both the party and to you has prevented me from making public comment on your objections to the Panorama programme … However if the activities of certain individuals in Conservative Central Office interfere with legal proceedings against the National Young Conservatives, I cannot remain silent.
He also says:
On the 22 February the Central Office Legal Officer"—
I have now discovered that it is a man called Mr. David Mitchell—
contacted a member of the Conservative delegation which had visited Berlin and suggested to him that the account he had given was incorrect and conflicted with the evidence given by other delegation members with whom he had spoken. He claimed to have arranged for these other individuals to put their adjusted version
adjusted version—
of events to you in writing. When the delegation member in question refused to change his version it was suggested he speak to no one about the incident and that he lie low … The second instance relates to the leaking of information to a certain Sunday newspaper by an individual in Conservative Central Office Press Department. I would have been oblivious to this had not the reporter contacted me for confirmation.
He added:
In conclusion may I say I find these activities deplorable and would ask you to instigate an investigation immediately.
I have been given this letter by a person who is close to the internal workings of Conservative Central Office. I am informed that a tape recording between Mr. David Mitchell and a witness might be available to me. This is an important matter because the activities of Mr. David Mitchell, who is head of the legal office at Conservative party headquarters, placed him in contravention of the law. It is a common law misdemeanour to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
In the case of Shaw v. Shaw in 1861 and the cases of Bromilow v. Phillips in 1891, and Regina v. Greenberg in 1919, it was decided that it is a contempt to endeavour improperly to influence a person who is a potential witness in a pending case with the intention of affecting that person's evidence; that the fact that the attempt may be unsuccessful is immaterial, the only question being whether the act complained of is calculated to interfere with the due administration of justice.
There are a number of cases relating to the manufacture of false evidence and the inducing of persons to give false evidence. They include the cases of Vreones, Grimes, Andrews and Panayiotou. In the case of Regina v. Kellett, Lord Justice Stephenson said:
Once legal proceedings have set the course of justice in motion, it is important that it should be allowed to flow unobstructed and undiverted, and that perjury should be

exposed and truth ascertained only by examination and cross-examination of witnesses in open court and justice should be administered in the way which is ordinarily pursued"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must now bring his remarks to a close. He has had three minutes.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: These matters are important. A debate is needed, with the Attorney-General answering demands for an inquiry. Debate is urgently needed as the BBC, for reasons other than the pursuit of justice, and under pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament and the current chairman of the Conservative party, has chosen to ignore the contravention of the law and settled out of court at considerable cost to the licence fee payer. Had the public been aware of this crude attempt by central office to squeeze witnesses—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the need for an inquiry into evidence of interference with witnesses in the case of Hamilton and Howarth v. the BBC.
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Norman Tebbit): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should say—

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Tell us about the moral majority.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Tebbit: I should say, Mr. Speaker, that the allegations made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—not to the police but under the cloak of privilege—will be answered immediately by me, outside, without the benefit of cover of privilege.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This cannot be a continuation of the application. It must be a point of order that I can answer.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have hon. Members scurrying across the Chamber like this. Mr. Skinner.

Mr. Skinner: In view of what the chairman of the Tory party has just had to say, may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that, with regard to the letter from the Young Conservatives, many of us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Mr. Skinner: You did not stop the chairman leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to raise an issue which has absolutely nothing to do with me. If he raises a point of order with which I can deal, I will endeavour to answer it.

Mr. Skinner: Yes, I will.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will give the hon. Gentleman one last chance.

Mr. Skinner: In view of what the chairman of the Tory party said, both before the application and since, I believe it would be sensible, Mr. Speaker, if you were to arrange for the responsible persons involved with the arm twisting of the broadcasting authorities to come before the appropriate Committee of the House of Commons so that we can ascertain exactly to what extent the two recent chairmen of the Tory party were involved.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even that is not a matter for me. It is a matter for the Select Committee concerned.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are in a position of some ambivalence created by the strange role of the chairman of the Conservative party. Here we have, at the head of the Conservative central office, a Cabinet Minister whose sole responsibility seems to be to administer that office. That Minister has used his position to come to the Dispatch Box, not to rebut what has been said but to state that he intends to rebut it somewhere else. That is of importance to the House.
The second point of importance to the House is based on what my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says has been a calculated attempt by Conservative central office — led by a Conservative Minister — to pervert the course of justice. On today's Order Paper there is a motion, with several amendments, signed by over 100 Conservative Members, demanding the resignation of individuals at the BBC. It is an important matter when the position of the House is used in this way.
The third element which makes this matter especially relevant to the House is the fact that two of our Members have received substantial sums of money, from public funds, which may be as a result—if my hon. Friend the Member for Workington is correct — of a calculated attempt by central office to pervert the course of justice by suppressing information. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Conservative chairman in his Cabinet role should come to this House and make a statement.—[AN HON. MEMBER: "He has."] He has not. He has stated his intention to make a statement outside.
In view of the severity of the allegations which have been made by my hon. Friend, I suggest that the Attorney-General should consider referring the whole matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions and report to the House on his action.

Mr. Speaker: None of that is a matter for me. I am not responsible for any appointments that may be made in the Cabinet or to the Conservative party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker."] Order. I cannot see any conceivable way of answering points of order on this matter.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This allegation is based on whether hon. Members may use the protection of the House to make statements. I have never sought to use that protection but I have never sought to deny any Member of the House who has sought to use it the protection of privilege accorded by this House. Over the years I have been here, Mr. Speaker, the occupants of the Chair have always condemned the kind of conduct that has been displayed by the chairman of the Tory party.

Mr. Speaker: Any Member who makes a Standing Order No. 10 application raises a matter which, unless it is granted for debate, is not answered. If a Front-Bench Member seeks to speak, I have no knowledge of what he will say and he is within his rights to speak.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point I was making did not concern what the right hon. Gentleman said but his conduct in stamping out of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for me.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a paint of order, Mr. Speaker. This is for you to judge, because you have just declined an application under Standing Order No. 10 because you did not consider that the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) contained sufficient evidence for you to grant that application—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me stop the hon. Gentleman there. It did not meet the criteria of the Standing Order. The hon. Gentleman need only look up the Standing Order to know what they are.

Mr. Banks: I understand that point, Mr. Speaker, but Members have only just received copies of this letter. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is two years old."] It was sent by Philip Pedley to the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), and it makes serious allegations. Points have been raised in the House and surely the place for those points to be answered is in this House and not outside.

Mr. Michael Brown: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely one of the criteria which are used by you to determine whether a Standing Order No. 10 application should be accepted is whether the matter is urgent. It is obvious from the date of this letter that it has been in circulation for over two years.

Mr. Speaker: I have not seen the letter.

Mr. Dave Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a simple matter. Am I right in remembering that, a few months ago, Mr. Speaker, you gave a ruling from the Chair regarding Front-Bench Government spokesmen coming to the Dispatch Box to make a statement under the guise of a bogus point of order which precluded Members of the House from questioning that person on the statement? That is especially relevant now, when the chairman of the Conservative party immediately walked out having made his point of order. This is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker, and you ought to deplore a bogus point of order and an exit from this House which was done purely to make sure that Labour Members could not question the chairman of the Tory party on the points that he made.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether a Member walks out or not is entirely a matter for him. I think the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) might well recollect that he has made such a decision himself.

New Writ (Knowsley, North)

Proceedings resumed on the Question,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Knowsley, North, in the room of Robert Kilroy-Silk Esquire, who since his election for the said county constituency hath accepted the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the county of York.—[Mr. Foster.]

Mr. David Steel: rose—

Mr. Ian Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is within your recollection that when the Labour Chief Whip moved the writ immediately after prayers the leader of the Liberal party was not in his place. The objection was raised by the so-called Chief Whip—which, Mr. Speaker, you may think is a contradiction in terms—of the Liberal party. If the Chief Whip was able to pluck up the courage to raise the objection, why has he not the guts to move the motion himself?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me. Mr. Steel.

Mr. Steel: Let me answer that point at the beginning of my speech. The object of raising an objection, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), as a senior Member of the House, should know, is so that a debate may take place now and questions may be asked now about the moving of the writ.
The point that I seek to raise is simply this. The Opposition Chief Whip yesterday gave his usual courteous notice, through the usual channels, that he intended today to move the writ for the by-election. I acquit him of any blame for what has happened since. However, the House should be aware that this morning the Knowsley, North Labour party sought an injunction in the courts to prevent the imposition on the constituency of a candidate from outside.
In the House, we must take account of the views of the electors in that constituency, starting from the point that they did not ask for the by-election. It has been caused by the desire of our former colleague, Mr. Kilroy-Silk, to go to the pastures that you described, Mr. Speaker, in place of his previous occupation. The electors are landed with a by-election that they did not want, and they are now being landed with a candidate whom they say they do not want. I know of no precedent for a by-election writ to be moved in the House before it is known who the candidate will be for the party—[Interruption.]

Mr. Jerry Hayes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough he may catch my eye, but he will not do it that way.

Mr. Steel: It is a legitimate matter of public interest that the candidate should be known and that the decision of the courts should be made before the writ is moved. Therefore, I ask whether the leader of the Labour party will agree that until the court's decision is made the writ should not be moved.
One other reason is that it is a little unfair to the alliance candidate — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh] — and, indeed, to the Conservative candidate, if there is one, that they should begin their campaign without knowing who they are fighting against.
For all those reasons, I suggest that we should await the decision of the courts on this matter of extreme public interest.

Mr. Ian Gow: One of the least attractive features of the Liberal party is the sanctimonious self-righteousness with which its leader usually addresses the House. Today, when he did not even have the courtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, to be here when the Opposition Chief Whip moved the writ for the by-election, he dressed up in the guise of public interest the truth that the Liberal party is not ready for the by-election.
One month ago today the Liberal party, meeting in annual assembly in the Congress theatre, Eastbourne, in my constituency, rejected the defence policy advocated by its leader. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), who has just addressed the House, with characteristic courage, failed to address the Liberal party on the key issue of defence. He was then summoned—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Is that relevant to the issue of my warrant?

Mr. Gow: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we must listen to the real reasons why the leader of the Liberal party addressed the House in the way that he did.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker—you follow these matters closely—that the leader of the Liberal party was summoned from Eastbourne to London by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). At considerable danger and distress to my constituents, disturbing the elderly voters, the very people whom the Liberal party claims to champion, the right hon. Gentleman travelled by helicopter. It arrived in London, and he waited upon the right hon. Member for Devonport. I was not present, and nor were you, Mr. Speaker, when the doctor received the leader of the Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "The patient."] It is a sign of the new-grown courage of the leader of the Liberal party that he has been able to make a speech in this place in the absence of the doctor.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not stray—[Interruption.] Order. It may well be that they met, but did they discuss the warrant?

Mr. Gow: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, the date upon which the Liberal party debated defence. It was Tuesday 23 September 1986. You remember it well, Mr. Speaker, and you have raised the issue, and I believe that you were right to raise it. Did the doctor and the right hon. Gentleman discuss the Knowsley by-election? The attention of the House was directed to the matter not by me, but by Mr. Speaker himself.

Mr. Speaker: I must not be brought into those matters. I say to the whole House that we are only discussing the motion that I read out at the beginning of the debate. We must stick to it.

Mr. Gow: But, Sir, it was you who raised, and, in my view, wisely, the issue about the right hon. Gentleman from the borders and the right hon. Gentleman who represents, for the time being, the Devonport constituency, who is not in his place: what did they discuss at that meeting? It was, of course, in part the shambles of the defence policy of the Liberal party. Of course, the leader


of the Liberal party was rebuked by the doctor. That goes without saying. But they also discussed — and you rightly hinted at this, Mr. Speaker—the Knowsley by-election. It was agreed that until there was a suitable defence policy, which you may think is one of the supreme issues of our time, Mr. Speaker, until a policy was patched up, cobbled together, dressed up, fashioned between the right hon. Gentleman and the doctor, it would be unwise to give arty encouragement to have the Knowsley by-election. The Liberal party, not for the first time, dressed up its words and deeds as if Liberals were the purest people in the land. That is why we have to expose today the sheer humbug of the Liberal party.
The leader of the Liberal party does not care about the well-being of the people of Knowsley. He cares about one thing only, and that is the presumed electoral advantage of the Liberals. When a Member of the House, particularly a right hon. Member, dresses up as truth that which is manifestly untrue it is right that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of debating the matter.

Mr. Dave Nellist: In the hon. Gentleman's peroration, are we likely to expect any detail about the 50 per cent. and higher unemployment in parts of Knowsley? Are we likely to expect any details from the hon. Gentleman of the housing conditions, the poverty and low wages in that area, or are we to be subjected, in the next 10 minutes, as for the past five minutes, to the worst form of public school stupidity that epitomises this place?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be tempted to raise any of those issues. The issue before the House is whether or not this warrant should be issued.

Mr. Gow: That is indeed the issue before the House, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist), who shares a visual similarity with Mr. Leslie Huckfield, that he need have no fear. In the opening few moments of my speech, I referred to the Liberal party. Mr. Speaker, have no fear. I turn now to the views of the Labour party and to the reasons why the Opposition Chief Whip, in the absence of the leader of the Liberal party, moved the writ immediately after prayers. Even the leader of the Liberal party was quite correct when he said that it is necessary to move the writ for this by-election because there is no longer a Member of Parliament for Knowsley, North. But there was a Member of Parliament for Knowsley, North and, by one of those accidents of events, I happen to have with me extracts from the excellent book that he has just written. You, Mr. Speaker, have, I am sure, read the book.

Mr. Speaker: No, I have not.

Mr. Gow: In that case, there are one or two extracts that I should like to read from it. The reasons for the by-election are set out with commendable clarity by our former colleague, Mr. Kilroy-Silk. He has some observations to make about his colleagues. One of the extraordinary features of the Opposition is that they preach the universal brotherhood of man but that they hate and abuse one another even more than they hate and abuse us. If any right hon. or hon. Member believes that I overstate the case, here is an example which I wish to read to the House.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What has this got to do with the issue of the writ?

Hon. Members: A great deal!

Mr. Gow: I am trying to explain why there is to be a by-election.

Mr. Speaker: We know that there is to be a by-election. The hon. Gentleman must concentrate upon whether I should issue my warrant in respect of it.

Mr. Gow: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I shall shorten my speech to this extent. I intend to give only one illustration of the brotherly love that permeates not only the Opposition but the Labour party throughout the country:
The conference floor erupted. And that bastard Eric Heffer, the prima donna to outdo all prima donnas, got up and lumbered off the platform and out of the hall.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is an old parliamentary hand and knows that he must not use language of that kind. That is an unparliamentary word, even by attribution, and I ask him to withdraw it in respect of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).

Mr. Gow: I think it is in order, is it not, Mr. Speaker, to point—

Mr. Speaker: No. It is clearly set out in "Erskine May" that unparliamentary words may not be used about another hon. Member, even by attribution.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Gow: Of course I withdraw, and of course I make it clear that that is not how I should describe the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer). I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman if he wishes to disagree with me, but I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that if the hon. Member for Walton were sitting on this side of the House, I should describe him as my hon. Friend.
It has to be conceded that the Opposition Chief Whip moved the writ for the by-election. We on this side of the House well understand the reluctance of the Opposition Front Bench to see the return to this place of Mr. Leslie Huckfield. Although I have been in this place for only a very short time, I think it would be true to say that Mr. Huckfield was not the most popular Member of this place. I find myself, therefore, in respectful agreement with the decision yesterday of the National Executive Committee, although it was not, I believe, secured in a spirit of the greatest fraternity. I well understand the view of the National Executive Committee. However, the grounds on which the NEC is trying to prevent Mr. Leslie Huckfield from becoming the candidate for Knowsley, North are breathtaking. The disqualification—

Mr. Nellist: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What is it?

Mr. Nellist: I distinctly remember that during the miners' strike when court cases were being heard outside this building you, Mr. Speaker, made rulings as to what matters could or could not be raised. Today there is an action in the High Court concerning the remarks about which the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) is speaking. You ought to be aware of that fact when the hon. Gentleman makes those remarks.

Mr. Speaker: I am aware of the fact that an action is pending, but in respect of this matter I think that I should exercise my discretion and allow the debate to go forward.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the timetable, upon which the Chief Whip of the Labour party might be able to assist us. People are at the High Court in the Strand at the moment; according to the tapes, they are seeking to appear before the Lord Chief Justice. I wonder, therefore, whether the Opposition Chief Whip would accept that the motion should be withdrawn for today until the outcome of this highly relevant court case is made clear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate is already proceeding, but since the matter has been raised I think that I should give this ruling on it. The motion that is before the House is an important matter of privilege affecting the composition of this House, and in my view the House should not be prevented, by proceedings elsewhere, from debating or deciding it. Accordingly, I propose to exercise my discretion and to allow the motion to proceed.

Mr. Gow: I was reminding the House about the decision of the National Executive Committee of the Labour party, of which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is a distinguished member. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not here. Where is he?"] The reason that was given as to why Mr. Leslie Huckfield was unsuitable as a candidate for the Labour party was that he had broken an undertaking. Since when has it been an obstacle to being a candidate for the parliamentary Labour party that one has broken an undertaking? That is a completely novel proposition for the Opposition.

Mr. Steve Norris: It is a basic requirement.

Mr. Cow: Indeed; my hon. Friend says that it is almost a precondition.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield, whom I would not describe as my hon. Friend, even if he were sitting on this side of the House, apparently has been deprived by the comrades in Knowsley of the right to be chosen because he broke an undertaking. To whom did he give the undertaking? It was not given to you, Mr. Speaker. As far as I know, it was not given to the right hon. Gentleman who leads the Opposition. It was certainly not given to the doctor who is not present. I did not like the way in which the Labour party, which sometimes claims to be the champion of a certain amount of modest dishonesty within its ranks, sought to impose its wishes and to inhibit the free choice of the comrades who control the party in Knowsley. I would have given the comrades in Knowsley their head.
If I had been a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour party, which I readily concede that I might, I would have voted with the hon. Member for Bolsover. The reason that I would have done so is this. It is not that I like Mr. Huckfield; I have made it clear that I do not. However, it is wrong that the central part of a democratic party should seek to dictate to a local part of that party. Provided, as is mercifully the case in every one of the Government's constituencies, that our associations are properly constituted, it is up to our local association to choose the candidate. It is a procedure which my right hon. and hon. Friends do not fear. We do not fear it because we have not had massive infiltration of the kind that the Labour party has suffered.

Mr. Eric Forth: My hon. Friend may be aware that Mr. Leslie Huckfield is also a member of the European Parliament. Does he consider it possible

that one of the motives for the events that he has described is that the Labour party fears that, if Mr. Huckfield were selected as a candidate in Knowsley, North, and if by some misadventure he were elected to this House, either he would be carrying a double mandate or he would be forced to resign from the European Parliament, thus giving rise to another unwanted by-election for the European Parliament?

Mr. Gow: My hon. Friend must not lead me astray. I remind him that I was one of a small band on this side of the House and of a much larger band on the other side of the House that was and remains opposed to direct elections to the European Assembly.
It may have occurred to you, Mr. Speaker, that the drama facing the Labour party, and now apparently facing the electorate of Knowsley, North, is that if we had not had direct elections the issue of the so-called undertaking would never have arisen. It was an undertaking, so we are told, that so long as Mr. Huckfield was a Member of the European Assembly he would not seek election to this place.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is possible for you to reconsider your decision under Standing Order No. 10? Would it not be better for us to discuss the serious issue of the Tory party interfering with witnesses than to listen to this rubbish?

Mr. Speaker: That is a completely different issue. I remind the hon. Member, who has been speaking for about 20 minutes, that we have a heavy day in front of us and that other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

Mr. Gow: I defer to your wishes, Mr. Speaker. The anticipation with which I shall listen to the remainder of the debate will be matched only by the eagerness with which I await the return of a Conservative Member for Knowsley, North.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I am intrigued by what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said about me. I must tell him that if he sat on this side of the House I would call him an honourable Friend. Whether I would actually believe that is a different matter altogether. I understand that, in the House of Commons, it is usually the case that people on one's own side of the House are one's enemies—whatever party one is in—and that people on the other side of the House are usually one's personal friends, if not one's political friends. That is how it goes. I do not intend to say anything about the book to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I should, however, point out that there are other books available which hon. Members might like to read. I would hope that there are more serious books on politics than the one referred to.
The debate is about the moving of a writ. Whenever a writ is moved, whenever a writ is accepted and whenever a by-election takes place, the House and the country should bear in mind the terrible problems of the people in the area concerned. The constituency of Knowsley, North is next to my constituency. The area has one of the highest levels of unemployment in this country. Over 50 per cent. of the people on some housing estates are unemployed. As in many other parts of Merseyside, there is a growing drugs problem. Young people are out of work. Many of


them came down here some time ago to meet the Prime Minister to urge the creation of employment. They are still out of work.
Those are the problems that must be faced when an election takes place. The only party that has any idea of how to deal with the problems is the Labour party. We are not afraid of an election, because I am convinced that the people of Knowsley, North will vote for the Labour party on the next occasion, as they have consistently voted for it over the years.
If I disagree with certain aspects of what has happened, it is with the rights of the constituency Labour party. That is the only issue with which I disagree. I cannot remember, over a long time, any candidate in my party being appointed over the head of the constituency Labour party. I have a feeling that if I were a delegate on that general management committee Mr. Huckfield might not have received my vote, but that is not the issue. There may well be some argument about whether the national executive has a right to say who should or should not be a candidate because he is a Member of the European Parliament, but there cannot be an argument about the right of any constituency Labour party to decide who the candidate should be. That is the only point that I make about that.
I cannot understand why the Liberal party has raised this matter, because yesterday the Liverpool Daily Post stated:
Steel tells Labour: Hurry up or else.
It went on to say:
David Steel is to present an ultimatum to Neil Kinnock: move the writ in the Knowsley, North by-election or the Liberals will do it for you.
Our Front Bench, for good or ill, has moved the writ and now the Liberals say "Hold it up." That is typical of the Liberal party, and my dad would have had words to say about it, but I will not repeat them in the House. In essence, the Liberal party never quite knows where it is going or what it is involved in. I expected it today to produce all sorts of horrific stories that are supposed to be going on and I have evidence to answer all those horrific stories, but we have not reached that point.
There should be second thoughts about the matter and we should allow the local Labour party, democratically and through the party's constitution, to decide who the candidate should be. But whenever the election takes place, the Labour party will win it, because it is the only party that will deal with the problems of Knowsley, North.

Mr. Michael Brown: The motion before us relates to the issuing of a writ and it is entirely in that context that I wish to make my remarks. The question is whether Knowsley, North shall elect a Member of Parliament to this House during the next three weeks.
I am not concerned with whether that election will give rise to the possibility of a Labour Member, a Conservative Member or a Liberal Member being elected, although I would like a Conservative Member to be elected. I am concerned in this debate, which is given precedence over the Orders of the Day, only with the serious subject of whether or not the constituency should be represented by a Member of Parliament a certain number of days after moving the writ.
I support the Opposition Chief Whip in moving the writ and I want to detail some of the problems facing

Knowsley, North. I cannot hope to match the rhetoric and excellent style of the previous speeches and I shall not attempt to do so. It has been suggested to me that if I cannot match the skill of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) in making his case, I should not speak, but there are serious points that I wish to make. I always wonder what might happen in any constituency were an hon. Member to vacate his seat and leave his constituents dependent on the House of Commons moving a writ. I contemplate that in regard to my constituency from time to time.
In the post-war years, much of Liverpool's poorer population was resettled in council housing developments on the edge of the Merseyside conurbation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will agree that the most notorious is Kirkby. It is not, a new town but a series of vast council house estates which were created in the 1950s. In 1951 its population was 3,000 and in 1961 it was 52,000. Kirkby has had a dramatic effect on the politics of north-east Liverpool which is bounded by Knowsley, North. Indeed, Kirkby is now part of the Knowsley, North constituency which once formed part of the Huyton constituency represented by Lord Wilson. Kirkby played a major role in lifting his majority from 854 in 1950 to more than 19,000 in 1964.
In February 1974 Kirkby was moved into the relatively rural area of Ormskirk, which was formerly a safe Tory seat, but which was won by the former Member, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk. It now forms the basis of the Knowsley, North constituency and, divorced from the Conservative part of west Lancashire, is undoubtedly one of Labour's safest seats.
As the hon. Member for Walton said, Kirkby has many problems and deprivations which breed vandalism and violence. It suffers from appalling unemployment and housing blight. Tower blocks built only a decade ago, such as Tower Hill, have already had to be demolished. Small wonder that "Z Cars", the BBC TV crime series in the 1960s and early 1970s, was set there. It has a great scarcity of leisure services to offer its population.
I understand why Liberal Members are taking such interest in whether or not the writ is moved because until now they have been the only effective opposition to the Labour party there, although that has always been the case with local elections. The rest of Knowsley, North consists of Cantril Farm—a 1960s peripheral development which is just outside the Liverpool city boundary— and of Prescot — an industrial company town which is dominated by the huge British Insulated Callendar Cables plant.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell us the purpose of his speech? Is it so that the Conservative candidate, when selected, can find his way to Kirkby and will know something about the conditions there? All of this is old hat for most of us in the area. We know what Kirkby is and how it has suffered under the Tory Government. I wonder why the Prime Minister is not present to answer the hon. Gentleman's allegations.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) is in order in what he is saying, but I must say to the whole House that it is clear from the Order Paper that we have a busy day ahead of us. The only


issue before us is whether or not I issue my warrant in respect of this particular by-election. I hope that we can concentrate on that.

Mr. Brown: I am making a serious speech and my only motive is that I am extremely concerned about a constituency which does not have a Member of Parliament because its Member has resigned. It must rely on a writ being moved in order to be represented. I have some serious points which are pertinent and relate to the precedence that this matter of privilege is given in the order of business.
In reply to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), there may well be many hon. Members in and around the area that he represents who know the area well, but other hon. Members who do not have the privilege of knowing Liverpool's problems are bing invited either to vote in favour of or against moving the writ. It is precisely because of the problems which the hon. Gentleman criticises me for raising that I feel required to bring them to the attention of the House so that the House may decide by a large majority, if the matter is pressed to a Division, that the writ shall be moved. In that way, the problems of which we may be unaware, but of which the hon. Gentleman is so well aware, can be drawn to the attention of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. In this debate the hon. Gentleman cannot deal with the issues that may arise during the course of a by-election. The only issue before us now is the timing of this by-election.

Mr. Brown: By describing the constituency as I have done, one will surely arrive at the conclusion that, after so many years of being absorbed in large constituencies, it is only right that Kirkby should form the core of a seat which is smaller than average. No other town can need effective representation more desperately than Kirkby, which means that the town needs a Member of Parliament to be elected at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is not correct to say that Knowsley, North is unique in being without a Member. Will the hon. Gentleman assist in moving a writ for Welwyn Hatfield?

Mr. Brown: I am not aware that there is a vacancy anywhere apart from Knowsley, North. My only reason for speaking to the House now is to show why I support moving the writ for Knowsley, North. Therefore, I cannot refer to any other parliamentary constituency.
When a constituency has such problems it needs a Member of Parliament in the House. Knowsley, North is denied a Member because of the decision, for understandable reasons, of the previous Member not to remain in the House. Regardless of the party political debates which may be going on elsewhere, in the High Court and within individual political parties relating to the selection of a candidate, the people of Knowsley, North need a Member of Parliament, of some kind, to represent their interests. Until they have a Member to do so, the problems which I have touched upon will have no chance of effective representation in the House.
The moving of this writ has also provided an opportunity to raise a number of important issues. This will be the first by-election since the nation saw, on its

television screens during the summer, the problems of nuclear waste. This issue has become part of a national campaign by all parties. Knowsley, North is the first constituency to have a by-election since this issue became of national importance, not just of local importance to constituencies such as my own, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg). The people of Knowsley have an opportunity to show the House what they think of important national issues, and not just those issues local to Liverpool. They would want to have a Member of Parliament elected at the earliest possible opportunity if they faced issues similar to those faced by my constituents. If the writ were to be passed by the House, that Member would, in response to the issue of nuclear waste being raised during the course of the election campaign, be able to draw it to the attention of the House.
A by-election now is important for the people of Knowsley because the issues which concern them are national as well as local issues. They are concerned about the future of nuclear power, and about what happens to the nuclear waste which is generated by their local hospitals. They are anxious to ensure that the decisions which the Government take will meet with the electorate's approval. They will be the first group of people in the country to be able to express their views on the nuclear industry since the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive was given the authority to test drill for nuclear waste dumps. The decision on whether to have an early by-election is crucial because the nuclear industry will be a major feature, not only of by-election campaigns, but also of the next general election campaign.
The problem of nuclear waste does not just touch those of us who have the misfortune to live in areas selected for nuclear waste disposal testing. It affects other constituencies in the country and it is, therefore, important that the electorate of Knowsley, North should have the opportunity to decide whether they shall have a Member of Parliament who will take a close interest in it. It could be thought that this issue will not concern the people of Knowsley because they are some way from sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. It is a matter of concern to them, however, because if Knowsley, North were selected to have a nuclear waste dump, and if there were no Member of Parliament, as is the case at the moment, the people of Knowsley would feel very hard done by.
There should be a by-election in that constituency because it has many problems which are unrepresented in the House at present. If we were to disapprove the motion to move the writ, as the Liberals invite us to do, those problems would remain unrepresented for even longer, and the constituency has been unrepresented for long enough already. It is time that the constituency had a Member of Parliament to take an interest, not only in the problems that affect it directly, but also in problems relating to the rest of the country. This applies especially to nuclear waste. I hope that the people of Knowsley, North will elect a Member on such grounds.

Mr. David Alton: I promise not to detain the House for long. This afternoon's debate touches the important question of constitutional propriety. Given the events of the last 24 hours and the High Court action, the timing of this by-election should be considered. The former Member for Knowsley, North


Mr. Kilroy-Silk announced his intention to resign his seat in August. He sat on his resignation for two months and did not resign until October.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) has argued that we should proceed with this by-election as quickly as possible. It should not have been necessary at all. The Liberal party did not call it. It was not forced by the resignation of a Liberal Member. The by-election has been caused because, by his own admission, a Member of this House was hounded out of his position in his constituency. Before calling the by-election, we should reflect for 24 hours, as my right hon. Friend suggested, on the decision of the High Court. We should reflect because the same thing will happen to another Labour Member as happened to the previous one who had the endorsement of the leadership of the Labour party and the national executive.
It cannot be fair to the ordinary people who live in the Knowsley constituency that they should be subjected to such internecine warfare that a Member of the House cannot concentrate on the issues that he should but rather ends up having to fight a rearguard action against his own members. If Knowsley Labour party does not believe that the candidate put forward by the national executive should be chosen, why should the electors of the borough of Knowsley?

Mr. Peter Lilley (St. Albans): Has the change of heart over the past 24 hours by the Leader of the Liberal party about the timing of the election anything to do with the publication of an opinion poll showing a slump in the Liberal's fortunes?

Mr. Alton: If the hon. Gentleman looks more closely at that opinion poll he will see that my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal party remains the most popular of the political leaders. But opinion polls are sometimes misleading. More important are the votes which are put in the box. There was a by-election in Knowsley, North, in Prescot, seven or eight weeks ago in the summer. The alliance polled 64 per cent. of the vote and the Conservative party polled 5 per cent.
We have no fears of fighting this by-election. Our fear is that great constitutional questions of propriety and the rights of Members are at stake. We are concerned about the poor pickets outside the Labour party headquarters in Knowsley, North whose views have been ignored in the past 24 hours and those women who chained themselves as sufragettes in Walworth road. Like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is not in his seat but who was one of those who voted last night that the constituency Labour party in Knowsley should have had the right to decide who the candidate would be, we are concerned about the rights of Members.
For those reasons, we should have liked the Labour Chief Whip to rise to the occasion and agree to reflect and ponder on this important question for 24 hours. We are sad that he did not do so and we shall have to bear that in mind when we decide whether to vote. In the absence of any rational thought on the part of the Labour party's Front Bench, we shall have no choice but to go along with other hon. Members and ensure that the vote takes place in Knowsley, North and that an alliance candidate is elected.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: As the Member of Parliament representing the constituency adjacent to Knowsley, North and the cessor of two-thirds of my constituency to the former Member of Parliament, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, I know something about the situation.
I respectfully agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Helfer), but for entirely different reasons. A constituency party's decision on its candidate is being overruled by the national executive despite the democratic choice of the members of that constituency party and that is a matter of great importance to the House.
We must also look at the shady motivations of the Labour party's Chief Whip in moving the writ at this stage. It is not to advance the election of a Member of Parliament to Knowsley, North; it is to cover up the true nature of the Labour party in Liverpool and in Knowsley and the north-west, not in any interest of democracy that we in the House would look to.
The position is simple. The true Knowsley, North Labour party is down the road in the Strand trying to obtain a writ from a High Court judge to prevent Mr. Huckfield from being disqualified as the candidate for Knowsley, North.
The House should bear in mind one of the comments of Mr. Kilroy-Silk in his book which relates to my seat in west Lancashire. You may be aware, Mr. Speaker, of one reason why the Labour party's Chief Whip is moving the writ. Mr. Kilroy-Silk was approached, as he said in his book, by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), who I do not think is in his place.

Mr. Robert Parry: rose—

Mr. Hind: He approached him as the chairman of the Merseyside group of Members of Parliament and he told Mr. Kilroy-Silk that they would offer him a deal. The deal was that if he would stand down in Knowsley, North they would offer him the Labour nomination for Parliament for west Lancashire to fight against me.

Mr. Parry: rose—

Mr. Hind: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished. It is notable that no writs have been flying about from the hon. Member for Riverside.
That offer was made following a meeting of what was called the broad Left in Liverpool. We all know what the broad Left in Liverpool means. It means Militant as much as anything. They had decided that Mr. Tony Mulhearn was to be the candidate. We all know that he is one of the eight that the Labour party has recently expelled because he was a member of Militant — only eight, not the thousands that we know are members of the Labour party in the north-west.
The importance of that for my part of the world is that that meeting in Lancashire must have contained representatives of the Labour party in west Lancashire to be able to sew up such a deal. That means that a lot of those members who have now elected, believe it or not, the chairman of the west Lancashire Labour party as their candidate in the next election—he was chairman at the time that that meeting took place—must have known something about it as well.

Mr. Gow: As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) is in his place, and since, mercifully, my hon.


Friend has the relevant extract from this excellent book, will he remind the House of what happened in the alcove between the hon. Member for Riverside and our former friend?

Mr. Hind: It will be my pleasure. The hon. Member for Riverside is alleged to have said:
'I've been asked to have a word with you as chairman of the group.' He coughed. He meant the Merseyside Group of Labour MPs — which did not meet very often and the identity of whose chairman was unknown even to some members of the Group. He seemed hesitant. I was impatient to vote and leave for home.
I've a …' He looked round again. 'I've been asked to offer you a deal.' I listened, first with incredulity, then amazement, and finally with a mixture of anxiety and anger.
What the 'deal' amounted to was that I should reconcile myself to the 'fact' that I would not be reselected for my Knowsley North seat but be replaced by the Militant supporter and president of Liverpool Labour Party, Tony Mulhearn. That, he said, had already been `decided'.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman proceeds with these interesting extracts, I should remind him that all that took place in the past and we are talking about what happens next.

Mr. Hind: I only raise these matters because they are relevant for you to consider, Mr. Speaker, in relation to this by-election and the interests of the voters of Knowsley, North.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk goes on:
I could have the candidature for the neighbouring, but Tory-held, West Lancashire constituency.
That is my seat.
If however, I refused to accept 'reality' and caused a public row, I would find myself blacklisted in West Lancashire and elsewhere, as well as Knowsley, North.
That is very relevant. The true Labour party is not being represented by the decision of the Labour party executive.

Mr. Parry: The Gentleman has quoted extensively from the so-called book of Mr. Kilroy-Silk. But the statements in that book are a complete distortion of what happened. At the request of many trade unionists, including my own union, the Transport and General Workers Union, and members of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers who had been sacked and who had lost their jobs in Kirkby, I spoke to Mr. Kilroy-Silk. He had not raised one finger to save the jobs of those thousands of workers. I asked Mr. Kilroy-Silk, if he was democratically deselected—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an intervention. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.

Mr. Parry: It is common knowledge in the Labour party that if the 1983 general election had not occurred when it did Mr. Kilroy-Silk would not have been selected because of his lack of effort on behalf of the people of Kirkby. There had been speculation that he was going to resign or stand as an independent Labour candidate against a selected member, so I put it to him that he should not split the Labour vote and should not resign or stand as an independent member. There was no mention of west Lancashire, of Mr. Tony Mulhearn or of anyone else.
Mr. Kilroy-Silk has been one of the most disgraceful Members of Parliament for Merseyside for many years —[Interruption.] In 10 years, he did not attend one

meeting of the Merseyside group, and often flatly refused to meet official delegations from Merseyside, from his own constituency, from the unemployed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be making more of a speech than an intervention.

Mr. Parry: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order The hon. Gentleman has had long enough.

Mr. Parry: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may make one last point.

Mr. Parry: Mr. Kilroy-Silk refused to meet pensioners and handicapped people from his own constituency, including blind people. That is why he is attacked by people in the Labour party. He has done nothing for more than 10 years. He has put it in his book—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman that we have dealt in considerable detail with what is alleged to have happened in the past? The only issue before us is whether this warrant be issued. We must not concentrate on what is to happen in the next few weeks.

Mr. Hind: I wish to reinforce what I said. These matters need to be seriously considered. We have heard the hon. Member for Riverside. I declare an interest as a member of the legal profession. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to meet me in the Lobby afterwards, I can start to prepare his libel case against Mr. Kilroy-Silk.
If Mr. Kilroy-Silk is correct, he was not good enough for Knowsley, North but he was good enough for west Lancashire. He obviously decided that discretion was the better part of valour and decided to stick with Knowsley, North because he thought that the Tories of west Lancashire were made of sterner stuff.

Mr. Peter Shore: Perhaps I should remind the House that the Labour Chief Whip has moved the writ in the normal way. It is very unusual for the moving of a writ to be the subject of debate in the House. When the motion has been debated, it has normally been because Back Benchers on both sides of the House have considered that the party claiming the seat or previously representing it has been too dilatory. In other words, in the few debates that we have had, the complaint has been that the motion should have been moved more swiftly and that the electors of the constituency concerned are being denied the services of their Member of Parliament.
The purpose of the House in debating such matters has always been to ensure that the constituents' interests are paramount and that they should have the first opportunity of putting to the test the rival claims of the different political parties that they will provide the best Member of Parliament for that constituency.
I thought that the leader of the Liberal party made a thin, threadbare and wholly unconvincing case that was not related in any way to the action that has been taken in the courts or to the issuing of the writ. Candidates are often subject to procedures in the courts, but we must decide whether we should move the writ and whether, therefore, we should give the people of Knowsley, North the opportunity of voting for their new Member of Parliament at the earliest moment.

Mr. Steel: What precedent is there for doubt about the nomination of the candidate to be hanging over the period of the issue of a writ? I know of none.

Mr. Shore: I can think of no precedent, but it is not relevant to the issue of the writ, which is entirely a matter for the House. It would be an invasion of the privileges of the House, as we have heard, if the court were to make such a judgment. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge there is a named, nominated candidate for that constituency. Each party operates under different rules and procedures, and until and unless our rules and procedures are shown to be false in a court of law, that nomination stands.
The only positive feature of the leader of the Liberal party's unfortunate introduction of this debate was to expose the motives of the alliance parties. He confessed at the end of his speech that if we proceeded today it would be unfair to alliance candidates. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has already very properly drawn attention to the heading in the Liverpool Daily Post or the Liverpool Echo—I forget which —in which the leader of the Liberal party apparently threatened, "Hurry up or else". No doubt the Liberals would move the writ themselves. It is an astonishing volte face in a ridiculous period of time.
I now wish only to congratulate some of the hon. Members who took part in this debate on providing us with some entertainment and with even more buffoonery. However, the House should now reach a decision and give the people concerned the opportunity of deciding who is to be the Member of Parliament for Knowsley, North.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the county constituency of Knowsley, North, in the room of Robert Kilroy-Silk, Esquire, who since his election for the said county constituency hath accepted the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead in the county of York.

Orders of the Day — Sex Discrimination Bill [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The Bill has two aims: to extend equal opportunities and to remove unnecessary bureaucracy. I know from the reports of the Committee stage and from our debates on Report yesterday that there are still differences of opinion about some of the detail of the Bill. Some Opposition Members seem strangely fond of bureaucracy and reluctant to agree to any proposals aimed at its reduction. But I know that all sides are united in supporting the Bill's primary aim of extending equal opportunities.
Our nation needs the talent of all its people if it is to become more efficient and therefore more competitive and prosperous. Only in that way can we hope to provide more real job opportunities for both men and women. We will not achieve this if either men or women are denied opportunities because of unreasonable, restrictive sex discrimination. The Bill is a further step towards the removal of such discrimination.
Hon. Members will not want me to review the details of the Bill's provisions, but I will touch on its highlights. With the new clauses inserted in Committee it now has three parts. The first, clauses 1 and 6, amends our legislation to conform with the judgment of the European Court of Justice. It said that our legislation was deficient on three counts: the blanket exemptions for small households, firms with five or fewer employees and the way that it dealt with non-legally binding collective agreements. Following a suggestion in another place this part of the Bill also brings partnerships of five or fewer within the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act — a fitting acknowledgement of the increase in the number of women entering business on their own account and of the Government's commitment to self-employment. One in four of those who are self-employed and also one in four of those who are enterprise allowance scheme participants are women.
We have had extensive discussions on the wording of the provision concerning private households. It is a most important provision since it could directly affect the homes of everyone in the country at some point in their lives. I know some hon. Members feel that the wording is still not sufficiently precise, but in my view it nicely balances two principles: the elimination of unreasonable sex discrimination and respect for private life.
The second part of the Bill consists of the new clauses added in Committee, clauses 2 to 5.
Clauses 2 and 3 provide for equal treatment in retirement age, and we introduced them in Committee as a result of the European Court's judgment in February in the case of Miss Marshall v. South-West Hampshire area health authority. Clause 2 makes it unlawful for an employer compulsorily to treat a woman differently from a comparable male employee solely on grounds of age. For example, it makes it unlawful compulsorily to retire her at 60 while allowing a man in a comparable situation to go


on working until 65, or to refuse her promotion or training because she is nearing 60 while allowing such rights to a man. Clause 3 gives a woman who is dismissed by her employer the right to claim unfair dismissal up to age 65, unless of course the undertaking where she works has a different normal retirement age which applies to both men and women.

Mr. John Evans: Will the Minister take this last opportunity to explain why the Government have not ended some discrimination against women who are still not entitled to redundancy payments if they are between the ages of 60 and 65? Surely that point should have been tackled when we were dealing with pensions and unfair dismissal. However, the Government did not deal with it, so will they tell us why?

Mr. Lee: If I have time, I shall endeavour to answer that point later. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are pressed for time. Clauses 2 and 3 represent a major step along the road to full equality, which has been welcomed on all sides. No longer can it be assumed that a woman has finished her working life before a man, and many employers are having to reconsider their policies which rest on this assumption. Although we have provided for employers to have up to a year to comply with these new provisions, not all will need so long to rearrange their procedures and adjust their manpower planning, and I hope that employers will make these necessary and welcome changes as quickly as they can.
Clause 4 removes the administrative hurdle which previously faced organisations wishing to provide training for people of one sex in occupations where they are seriously under-represented or for people in special need of training because they have been out of the labour market discharging domestic or family responsibilities. Experience has shown that this check is no longer necessary, and I believe that its removal will give further encouragement to the aim of bringing more women into occupations associated with science or new technology in which their numbers are still too few.
Clause 5 closes a small loophole in sex discrimination laws by preventing local authorities from using public entertainment licensing powers in a sex discriminatory way. I know of no authorities which currently discriminate, but the deficiency in our law was brought to our attention by the European Commission and we are now remedying it.
I turn to the third and final objective of the Bill—the repeal of restrictions on hours of work. Clause 7 removes outdated and discriminatory restrictions on the hours women may work in industrial undertakings, and clause 8 repeals the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954, which restricts night baking by male bakery workers.
The repeal of restrictions on women's hours are quite simply aimed at removing discriminatory legislation that has outlived its original purpose. The restrictions originated as long ago as the mid-19th century when industrial conditions, the position of women, and society in general were very different from today. It is high time that the 1·5 million women in the manufacturing sector should shed the somewhat second-class status that these restrictions imply. They should be permitted to determine their own hours of work with their employers without the law's intervention. It is illogical that women in this one

sector should be held back in this way. The repeals will merely put these women on a par not only with men in manufacturing but with the 8 million women in jobs where there are no legislative restrictions on hours of work.
The repeals will also remove a bureaucratic burden from employers. At present, employers may request the Health and Safety Executive to issue special exemption orders, renewable annually where they argue that it is necessary for increased efficiency. The House has not refused a request in recent years, and during the year 1984–85 more than 4,000 special exemption orders were granted covering more than 200,000 of the 1·5 million women in manufacturing. Almost half of those exemptions allowed some night working by women.
The flexibility provided by this exemption procedure strengthens the case for repeal rather than diminishing it. It implies that the restrictions on hours have little practical relevance in today's world. But I must stress that we would not repeal the restrictions if it involved any risks in our view to health and safety.
In this context, we should not forget the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This comprehensive Act takes the modern approach to health, safety and welfare at work, leaving older legislation to play a subsidiary role. It imposes on all employers a general duty to ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees. Employers must still consider the effects of changes in hours on their employees.
As I have said, the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954 regulates the hours which men may work in the baking industry, specifically excluding women from its provisions. The repeal of restrictions on women's hours would produce a ridiculous situation whereby the hours of men working in bakeries would continue to be regulated but women's hours would not. The options are to repeal the Act as we have chosen to do, or to extend it to women as the Opposition would prefer.
I do not want to rehearse previous arguments raised in Committee and on Report. Let me just make two points: first, the Act empowers the Secretary of State to issue exemptions suspending the statutory restrictions on hours if a collective agreement exists. Six such exemptions have been granted over the years, exempting from the Act some two thirds of employees in baking who settle their hours by collective agreement. The weaknesses that existed in the bargaining machinery of the industry are therefore no longer apparent.
Secondly, the Federation of Bakers has assured us that there is no prospect of job losses on the scale that the union fears. Although we understand the very natural anxieties that women may feel about the repeals, these fears must be kept in perspective. Millions of women—the vast majority—work in jobs where hours are not regulated by law and they organise their lives without apparent difficulty. Their experience suggests that women in manufacturing will be just as capable of doing that and will benefit from the increased opportunities that greater flexibility and removal of discrimination will bring. The repeals will also lift an unjustifiable burden from employers and will help to promote enterprise and ultimately employment, which is the Government's fundamental aim.
To sum up, this Bill will promote equal opportunities and flexibility in employment and will remove some


unnecessary bureaucracy. It is another step along the path to equality, and as such I am proud to be identified with it. I commend it to the House.

Ms. Jo Richardson: The Minister was blindly complacent about women's rights, If the Bill is an example of the Government's attitude to those rights I am glad that we shall have an election within the next 12 months or so and get a different Government.
It is a sad coincidence that we should be discussing this particularly bad Bill this year, because 1986 marks the publication of the Equal Opportunities Commission's 10th annual report. Considering what the EOC has said about the Bill and the rearguard action that the present chairperson had to mount in another place, the report has an ironic subtitle:
So much to build on".
Needless to say, it went to press full of optimism that its advice to the Government on the provisions dealing with protective legislation would be heeded. The commission must now he feeling decidedly pessimistic.
As the full implications of this ragbag of a Bill have gradually unfolded, its true purpose has emerged ever more strongly. It is clear that it has nothing to do with real equality for women. After a decade of sex equality legislation —introduced by a Labour Government—the Government have thrown away a golden opportunity to review and amend the legislation positively and constructively.
Labour Members recognised that such unique legislation — as it was at the time — would have its imperfections. Indeed, I was a member of the Standing Committee that considered the original Sex Discrimination Bill and I recall that, as a Government Back Bencher, I pointed out some of the imperfections in it. I know that if we had a Labour Government today those imperfections would be put right.
Equally important, we knew that the legislation would need constant review and amendment in the wake of case law and changing expectations. The Equal Opportunities Commission, which was established simultaneously with the enactment of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the amendments to the Equal Pay Act 1970, was enjoined to keep both Acts under review and, where necessary, to report to Parliament with recommendations for change.
In addition, throughout the past decade individual women, women in the labour movement and women's organisations have drawn attention to the deficiencies and weaknesses which have been found, through practice and experience, to exist in the original legislation.
There has also been a growing awareness of the need for positive action—I shall repeat that for the benefit of Conservative Members who do not know the difference between positive action and positive discrimination; it is displeasing to see the empty Government Benches following our previous riveting debate. There has been a growing awareness of the positive action that must be taken to ensure that equality for women means real equality rather than a paper commitment to an abstract concept.
Positive action means, for example, the provision of creches in Manpower Service Commission skillcentres, which the Government have consistently obstructed; it means removing the punitive tax that the Government introduced on workplace nursery places; it means

encouraging affordable, reliable, safe and accountable public transport, which the Government are attempting to destroy; it means extending employment rights and benefits to part-time workers — almost exclusively women — whose rights are being systematically wiped out by the Government; it means implementing the EEC directive on parental and family leave, restoring maternity rights and benefits, which the Government have ruthlessly plundered, and allowing local authorities to raise their rates to provide the real care in the community which women need to be able to exercise their right to work.
Positive action also means adopting equal opportunities policies throughout the public sector, promoted by contract compliance to educate and bring in line the private sector. It also means eradicating the discrimination that riddles our tax and security system —a task which the Government's Green Paper on taxation reform and their Social Security Act 1986 have singularly failed to perform.
I am conscious of the shortage of time for the debate because of the intrusion of the previous debate. My list could go on and on, yet what is the Government's reply? They have introduced a ragbag of grudging, partial provision with only minimum compliance with changes that have been forced upon them, and they have repealed protective legislation to level down protection for women and men, which has been pressed for by no one.
I emphasise that not one organisation with expertise in anti-discrimination and health and safety laws has requested or advocated the total repeal of that protective legislation. It is the epitome of negative action and the Conservative Members in Standing Committee seemed to have no trouble understanding that concept.
The Government have ignored all advice and have blocked every attempt to provide measures to level up, equalise and improve the conditions of all workers employed in the sectors covered by the Bill. I shall await with great interest a statement from the new Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security with special responsibility for women's health on her views on the implications for women's health when women in the manufacturing sector and the baking industry are forced to work double day shifts, weekends and bank holidays, includng Christmas day, with no code of practice governing the introduction of such enforced changes and no right of appeal for unfair dismissal. I hope that the new Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), who served on the Standing Committee on the Bill before her elevation, will keep the matter under close scrutiny, because the Government have failed in their duty to women by forcing through this legislation.
We are advised that clause 1 is unnecessarily wide and may lead to costly litigation and conflicting rulings. Clauses 2 and 3 introduce provisions which will lead to discrimination against men over 60, perpetuate discrimination against women in redundancy rights and create even more anomalies and uncertainty over retirement-related fringe benefits.
Clause 4 will need careful monitoring to ensure that it is not abused. Clause 5 merely closes one small gap in the yawning chasm which section 51 of the Sex Discrimination Act has become and which, together with the Marshall ruling, is a prime example of where further positive action must be taken.
We are advised that the outcome of clause 6 will be random and uncertain, as it fails to provide any


mechanism to deal properly with its provisions. Clauses 7 and 8 effectively wipe out any claims that the Government may have wanted to make for themselves as responsive or caring.
The Government's obstinate refusal, against the advice of the EOC and all the trade unions involved, to equalise protection upwards exposes their complete lack of understanding of real equality—equality which improves the quality of life in the workplace, in the home and in the community.
The attitude that has been displayed and some of the views that have been expressed during our debates in Committee and in the Chamber by some Conservative Members, one of whom stated that he would be happy to see the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act scrapped—a mind-boggling prospect—do not augur well for the review of the Acts which the EOC has recently announced that it intends to conduct. The task of the EOC will be made all the more difficult by the passing of this shoddy Bill, and the Government's refusal to accept the EOC's recommendations on so many aspects of the Bill must fill the Commission with trepidation about future reviews.
I am pleased to say that we in the Opposition have already taken on board all the issues that the EOC has outlined in its review and much more as a priority for the legislative programme that will be brought forward by our Ministry for women. That Ministry will be established when we get a Labour Government and such a Ministry cannot come soon enough for the women of Britain. The next EOC report after this Government have gone may have to be subtitled "Building from the Ruins". A Labour Government will be prepared to undertake that task. We oppose this Bill and will vote against it. We eagerly await the day when we can start rebuilding and giving women the opportunities and the back-up that they need.

6 pm

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: In recognition of the reduced amount of time for this debate, and in deference to hon. Members who have spent much more time on this Bill than I have, and for some of whom I deputise today, I shall make just one or two comments on this measure.
The Bill is a small measure in relation to one of the biggest issues of our day—the institutional discrimination against women which deprives our community, our employers and this House of a contribution that we can ill afford to miss. The Bill misses many opportunities to redress imbalances. Like the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), I regret that the Government's way of achieving equality in the baking industry is to reduce protection rather than to increase it. It is not in accord with the present realities facing trade unions to suggest that simply by removing their protection women will be able to negotiate better conditions in the baking industry. That is not the case, and it is not something of which the unions are particularly proud. To put anyone in that position by legislation is reprehensible.
Many other measures are required to enable equality to be a reality for women, as opposed to simply trying to abolish discrimination. The existing legislation fails to

address any of the problems. Some small points in the Bill are worthy of support, and for that reason the Bill is just about worthy of support, but only just.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: The one good thing about the Bill is its title. It has been the habit of the Government to misdescribe most of the Bills that they have introduced. They introduced a trade union-bashing Bill and called it an employment Bill. It had nothing to do with employment, because not only did it not create a single job, but it actually reduced the number of jobs. They introduced an erosion of civil liberties Bill and called it the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. They introduced an emasculation of wages councils Bill and called it a Wages Bill. At least this Bill has an honest title, because in the same way as a Finance Bill is for finance, and the Consolidated Fund Bill deals with the Consolidated Fund, so this sex discrimination Bill is for sex discrimination. Its long title ought to begin, "A Bill for the purposes of creating or, where it already exists, of enhancing sex discrimination."
Contrary views have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the purpose of and motivation for the Bill. The Government's argument is that it will sweep away old-time legislation and, in certain circumstances, equalise the conditions of women and men. That was the line taken last night by the right hon. and learned Gentleman — I have forgotten his title — [AN HON. MEMBER: "The Paymaster General."] — Yes, the Paymaster General. I ought not to have forgotten his title, because he lives much in my consciousness. He has a smooth oleaginous line of patter which reminds me of a chap from my boyhood days who used to sell gold watches for half a crown at mock auctions, or run out markets as we used to call them. The Paymaster General reminds me of that sort of sale.
The equality argument is put forward by the Government, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, we know what this Bill is about. It will tip the employer-employee relationship even further in the interests of the employer and weaken the already weak bargaining power of workers who are already weak because there are 4 million people unemployed. It will weaken especially the bargaining power of women workers.
There are two interpretations of what will be the effect of the Bill. How would an impartial person judge its effect? What evidence is there on the basis of which an impartial person could judge between the two interpretations? I suggest that there is one piece of evidence, because the Government gave the game away when they refused to accept new clause 1. That clause, which we put forward, would have left it to women workers to decide whether they wanted to be equal in status and equal in opportunity to earn more money by way of overtime or weekend work at the cost of leisure and safety, and at the cost of worsening their environmental conditions and of having to queue at bus stops at midnight on their way home from double day shifts.
If the motivation for the Bill is what the Government say it is, matters should be left for women to decide. After all, the Government are much in favour of secret ballots and in favour of a woman worker having the right to express an opinion on such a major question as who is to represent her on the executive of her trade union. They are


in favour of a woman worker having the right to express an opinion about whether her shop shall be a pre-entry closed shop, a post-entry closed shop or a non-closed shop — matters which many women probably do not understand at all. On such marginal things as how long she has to work each day, on how many hours she will be required to work without a break, whether she can be required to work at weekends or on Christmas day, and whether she will be required to work in unfavourable and unsafe environmental conditions she has no say at all.
If the Government were really seeking to improve women's conditions, they would have said yes to a ballot. They are talking about liberalising women. There is one great piece of liberalisation that anybody can confer, and it is the right for people to have a say in decisions that affect their lives and welfare and the lives and welfare of their families. The Government have denied that right, and that throws into question all their bona fides and the smooth talk of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Paymaster General and the ostensible reasons—which are not the real reasons — that the Government put forward for the Bill.
I shall make two more points about the Government's case. A quick look at each of them shows that they do not hold water. The Government ask us why we worry, because if anybody is done by unfairly she can always go to an industrial tribunal. I shall not go over the ground that we covered yesterday about industrial tribunals, because we demonstrated beyond peradventure that they are difficult and expensive of access and will probably be made more difficult and more expensive. Even when one reaches a tribunal one finds that it does not run very well, because in many cases the people who run tribunals are not very well qualified to deal with the problems that come before them and are scarcely qualified at all in any understanding of sex discrimination.
A right of appeal has been taken away from women workers. Even under the stress of war in 1940, when we were facing what most people thought was the imminent danger of defeat and being overrun, we still allowed an appeal from the chap who said that his creed did not permit him to fight. We allowed him to appeal even in that terrible, critical and dangerous situation.
The Minister could not answer me yesterday when I raised a question on that point, so I shall now answer it myself. A lady of deep, devout Christian conviction, who, as a result of the Bill, was for the first time required to work on a Sunday and refused to do so and was then sacked—as she could be under the Bill—would have no right of appeal. She would not have the same right of appeal on the grounds of conscience and faith as young men had in 1940 against conscription. That is absolutely disgraceful.
The Government ask why we bother about these matters and why we do not leave them to be settled, not by law, but by negotiation between trades unions and employers. There are a number of sweat shops in my constituency. A large number of women work in the needle trades, many of them part-time in small establishments or at home, and they have no protection. They are virtually ununionised, partly because they work in small establishments, which makes a union difficult to organise, partly because there is a rapid turnover of personnel, which also makes a union difficult to organise, and partly

because many of them are immigrants whose knowledge of the language is not good. For those reasons and others, there is little trade union organisation.
How does some poor girl on her own face an employer and negotiate with him? The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) was right to say that it is nonsense in present-day circumstances to talk about the negotiating process as one of negotiation between equals. The 4 million people unemployed have completely destroyed that. The queue of people at the factory gates cuts off the negotiating limbs of those inside the factory.
All the grounds that the Government have put forward in favour of the Bill, all the grounds that they have put forward to fend off our criticisms, are nothing but pretence. It is a pretence that the purpose of the Bill is anything other than to worsen the conditions of women workers; it is a pretence that any injustice is covered by the protection of industrial tribunals; and it is a pretence that we can leave these matters to free and equal negotiation. Under any sort of examination, the Government's case falls apart.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I shall speak briefly on the clauses that affect women bakery workers and their families. The bulk of women who work in the baking industry in my constituency wish to put their families first. They are good wives and good mothers and they work because they have to—they need the money. The effects of this Bill on their family lives should not be ignored. It is no use the Government deploring the breakup of families and juvenile delinquency with one breath, while with the other they force mothers to work nights.
Night working for women brings particular problems in trying to manage both the home and the family. Children need their mothers, and husbands — at least most of them—need their wives. Child care provision is difficult enough for mothers to obtain during the day—during the night it is virtually impossible, if not nonexistent. They face the problem of caring for the family and trying to snatch a few hours' sleep during the day in houses that are not insulated against noise, and that puts an added strain on them.
In my constituency the problem of sleeping during the day is very real and is made very much worse by the opencast wagons running around the roads in ever-increasing numbers. The lack of money available to councils to insulate council houses against such noise is an issue that we must consider when discussing night working, especially for women. The bulk of women in my constituency do not like night working, either for themselves or for their husbands. They do not want their social and family life to be diminished—yet that will be the effect of the Bill.
I hope that the Minister will realise that tired women are an added health risk in factories. It is not too late for him to change his mind, and I hope that he does so.

Mr. John Evans: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) on raising an important point about people who work shifts and at night facing the problem of establishing normal sleeping patterns during the day. That applies especially to women, many of whom have to contend with


young children. I am sure that my hon. Friend's comments reflect the views of many women who will be affected by the Bill.
In what is, for obvious reasons, a rather short Third Reading debate it is germane for me to make it clear immediately that the Opposition will divide the House and vote against the Bill. We shall do so, not because we disagree with everything contained in the Bill — we concur with certain parts of it — but because the Government have used it to introduce deregulation. Throughout the Committee and Report stages we argued that such deregulation should not be enacted, and we continue to oppose that on Third Reading.
The Opposition welcome parts of clauses 2 and 3 as a proper response to the European Court's decision in the Helen Marshall case. It is right once again to put on record the congratulations of the House to Miss Marshall on her determination in taking her case all the way to the European Court and winning it, thereby materially altering the lives of many women.
We are still, however, concerned about some aspects of the clauses. The first is the timing of the implementation of the changes. Clause 10 provides that those clauses will not be implemented within 12 months of the passing of the Act. That means that the inequalities and inequities that the clauses are meant to remove will legally be in force for the next 12 months, thus providing an opportunity for women to continue to be discriminated against. The Government could enact the clauses much more quickly than they propose. We have never had a proper explanation of why we have to wait 12 months.
Another matter of concern is the inequality in the eligibility for state pensions. The Equal Opportunities Commission said that it remains
very concerned at the failure to tackle the anomalies and differences in treatment between men and women which result from the unequal state pension age. For example, a woman between the ages of 60 and 64 will have the option of deferring retirement beyond the state pension age. She will be required no longer to pay the national insurance contributions and her eventual state pension entitlement will be enhanced for each year of employment over the age of 60. In contrast, a man will gain no such option. It was accepted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Ian Lang) during the Committee stage of the Bill (column 192) that 'we all agree that discrimination in retirement will not be eliminated until there are equal state pension ages for men and women'.
Of course, the Government have ignored that aspect completely. I suspect that we could have further representations in the courts on this issue.
On the issue of redundancy payments, the EOC argued:
Women will continue to be discriminated against on the the grounds of sex in that they will cease to be eligible for a redundancy payment at age 60 … The Government regards the provision of redundancy payments as a matter falling under the EEC Social Security Directive and not under the Equal Treatment Directive. The Commission doubts whether this is a proper interpretation of the position under European Community law and notes that the European Court of Justice has recently reiterated the fundamental importance of the principle of equality of treatment between men and women. The Court has given strict interpretation to clauses in the Equal Treatment Directive which derogate from that principle, in particular Article 1(2) which purports to remove issues of Social Security from that Directive.
That was from the EOC newsletter of October 1986.
Finally, in relation to other associated benefits, the EOC states:

A second defect of these clauses is the omission from paragraphs (a) to (c) of Clause 2(1) of words which appear in the comparable paragraphs of s.6(1) and (2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 dealing with access to benefits, facilities or services and subjecting a person to any other detriment. The Government intends that sex discrimination shall continue to be lawful to the extent that these issues are related to death or retirement.
I submit to the House that the Government should have tackled these issues during the passage of a Bill which purports to deal with sex discrimination.
Clause 7 deals with the removal of restrictions on working hours and conditions of women. That lies at the heart of the Bill. We have reiterated all the arguments in Committee and on Report, and we have made it clear that what the Government are doing, which will worsen the conditions of work for men, and especially for women, is entirely unacceptable, and we will certainly oppose the Bill.
Clause 8 deals with the repeal of the Baking Industry (Hours of Work) Act 1954. The repeal of that Act is doubly injudicious. Not only do the arguments about worsening the conditions of workers apply here, but there was not, and never has been, any demand for the repeal of the Act from workers or employers. Any anomolies in the Act could have been righted, in most cases, simply by applying its provisions equally to men and women, rather than by removing the Act entirely and reducing the conditions of work of male and female employees to the lowest common denominator.
Although the Government maintain that the Act is outdated and no longer necessary for the well-being of the industry and the workers within the industry, it is clear that the real reason behind its removal is that the alternative—extending the Act to cover women—would go against the Government's avowed intention to remove so-called bureaucracy and barriers to efficiency in business. It is in keeping with the general tenet of the Bill — if in doubt, scrap it. The Government argue that repealing the Act will have no effect on the conditions and hours of the work force in the baking industry. If that is the case, why are they trying to scrap it? In reality, they know that it will have a fundamental and negative effect on the work force. It plays into the hands of unscrupulous employers, who will use the opportunity to exploit the work force even more than at present.
A survey conducted by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers' Union found that the weekly average working hours in the industry amounted to 64 hours for dayshift and 63 hours for nightshift. In two large bakeries, they found 72 hours to be the average. The Government's own figures show that at least 30 per cent. of the work force in the industry are still covered directly by the terms of the 1954 Act. The other 70 per cent. may very well work under separate, negotiated agreements, but these agreements are based on the 1954 Act, and its removal, coupled with fierce competition within the industry, will lead very quickly to employers enforcing new agreements which will be less advantageous to workers in terms of their working conditions, but very much more advantageous to the Government's friends, the employers, in terms of their renewed ability to increase profits.
Yesterday, a petition signed by over 2,000 workers in the baking industry was presented to Parliament. It expressed the view, very clearly, that the repeal of the Act was not desired by, nor is felt to be in the interest of, the work force affected. The Act was the result of 10 years of


pressure from workers in the industry expressing the same sentiments. It also followed four inquiries into the effects of abolishing bakery nightwork. In less than one year, and without any substantial body of opinion to that effect, the Government are planning in this Bill to abolish the Act and thereby make bakers' lives more hazardous. For that reason, and the other reasons that I have outlined, the Opposition will vote against the Bill.

Mr. Lee: The Bill makes a number of changes which will help to improve the position of women in employment and secure for them the effective equal opportunities which we all wish to see. Although the European Community has played a part in this development, I see it as essentially a continuation of the movement towards the removal of unfair sex discrimination and the promotion of equal opportunities between men and women which has been supported by both sides of the House and to which this Government have been firmly committed.
Perhaps, I could mention just one change to which I attach great importance and which will I believe significantly improve the position of women at work both in the short and the long-term. That is the removal of discrimination in retirement ages following the Marshall judgment on which the Government acted with commendable speed. As I explained in my opening remarks, we consider it necessary to provide for a short period of 12 months after the Royal Assent for employers to make the changes in their retirement arrangements which will be needed. I should like to repeat my view that it will be in the interests both of employers and all their employees to remove, as soon as possible this long outdated anomaly of requiring a woman who wishes to continue working to retire in circumstances where a man can stay on. I am therefore heartened to hear of firms including Securicor, Mecca and the Prudential which are already taking steps to equalise their retirement ages and hope that many more will follow their example during the next few months without waiting until the last moment before the requirement comes into operation.
That does not contradict in any way the Government's aim of improving the competitiveness and efficiency of the economy. On the contrary, it must serve the ends of sound business practice as well as of justice between the sexes to ensure that the best use is made of all available skills and talents. I am therefore pleased to note the support which has been given to the general aims of the Bill, despite differences on individual provisions. The Bill is sensible and progressive, adds to labour market flexibility and should be warmly welcomed. I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 105.

Division No. 293]
6.28 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Beith, A. J.


Alexander, Richard
Benyon, William


Ancram, Michael
Bevan, David Gilroy


Arnold, Tom
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ashby, David
Biggs-Davison, Sir John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Blackburn, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Batiste, Spencer
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)





Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lilley, Peter


Bright, Graham
Livsey, Richard


Brinton, Tim
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lord, Michael


Brooke, Hon Peter
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Browne, John
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm
Maclean, David John


Budgen, Nick
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Butterfill, John
Madel, David


Carttiss, Michael
Major, John


Cash, William
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Chapman, Sydney
Mather, Carol


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Maude, Hon Francis


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Clegg, Sir Walter
Mellor, David


Cockeram, Eric
Merchant, Piers


Coombs, Simon
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cope, John
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Cormack, Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cranborne, Viscount
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Moate, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Monro, Sir Hector


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Dover, Den
Moynihan, Hon C.


Durant, Tony
Mudd, David


Dykes, Hugh
Neale, Gerrard


Eggar, Tim
Needham, Richard


Evennett, David
Neubert, Michael


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Nicholls, Patrick


Favell, Anthony
Norris, Steven


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Cranley


Forth, Eric
Oppenheim, Phillip


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Osborn, Sir John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Ottaway, Richard


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Greenway, Harry
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Ground, Patrick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Gummer, Rt Hon John S
Pawsey, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Pollock, Alexander


Harris, David
Portillo, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Powell, William (Corby)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Powley, John


Hayes, J.
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Raffan, Keith


Hayward, Robert
Renton, Tim


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Heddle, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hickmet, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hill, James
Rowe, Andrew


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hordern, Sir Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howells, Geraint
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Irving, Charles
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Jessel, Toby
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Johnston, Sir Russell
Silvester, Fred


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Sims, Roger


Kennedy, Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Key, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Speed, Keith


Kirkwood, Archy
Speller, Tony


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spencer, Derek


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)


Knox, David
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Ian
Squire, Robin


Latham, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lawler, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lawrence, Ivan
Stern, Michael


Lee, John (Pendle)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lester, Jim
Terlezki, Stefan


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcock, Michael


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waller, Gary



Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watson, John
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Watts, John
Mr. Gerald Malone.


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Anderson, Donald
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Leighton, Ronald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Loyden, Edward


Barnett, Guy
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Barron, Kevin
McKelvey, William


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Bell, Stuart
McTaggart, Robert


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
McWilliam, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Madden, Max


Blair, Anthony
Marek, Dr John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Michie, William


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Mikardo, Ian


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Canavan, Dennis
Nellist, David


Clay, Robert
O'Neill, Martin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Park, George


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Parry, Robert


Coleman, Donald
Patchett, Terry


Corbett, Robin
Pavitt, Laurie


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pendry, Tom


Craigen, J. M.
Pike, Peter


Dalyell, Tarn
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Prescott, John


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Radice, Giles


Deakins, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Dixon, Donald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Dobson, Frank
Robertson, George


Dormand, Jack
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Dubs, Alfred
Rowlands, Ted


Duffy, A. E. P.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Faulds, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Foster, Derek
Strang, Gavin


Foulkes, George
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Garrett, W. E.
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Tinn, James


Gould, Bryan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Wareing, Robert


Hamilton, W. W. (File Central)
Weetch, Ken


Hardy, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Winnick, David


Heffer, Eric S.



Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Home Robertson, John
Mr. Allen McKay and


Hoyle, Douglas
Mr. Mark Fisher.


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Salmon Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Sir Hector Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Most of us who have been involved with the Bill from the beginning, and others in another place, would say that one of the most important issues of the Bill is drift netting. It is unfortunate that the only amendment dealing with drift netting has not been selected.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that Mr. Speaker, before he makes his selection, takes all factors into consideration, including matters which have been discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman with his well known ingenuity will find that some of the selected new clauses and amendments will allow him to make his points.

Mr. James Tinn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As someone with a similar interest to that of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) but with a different point of view, may I ask that we shall have the Chair's indulgence in our ingenuity?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not stretch my words that far. I said that it may be that the hon. Gentleman's points would be in order on other new clauses or amendments. However, we must judge that when we come to it.

New Clause 10

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION FURNISHED UNDER THE DISEASES OF FISH ACT 1983

`(1) In subsection (1) of section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 (disclosure of information obtained in pursuance of section 7 of that Act), after paragraph (c) there shall be inserted the words "or
(d) for the purpose of enabling a water authority to carry out any of their functions under the 1937 Act.".'.—[Mr. Gummer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 2—Measures relating to the prevention of disease among fish—
`(1) Notwithstanding and without prejudice to the provisions of section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 ("Introduction of fish into inland waters"), any person who knowingly supplies any fish or spawn of fish to another for the purpose of the introduction of that spawn or fish into an inland water in circumstances where the written consent of the water authority within whose area any part of the water is situated has not been obtained under section 30 aforesaid, shall be guilty of an offence, punishable on summary conviction with a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
(2) In subsection (1) of section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983 ("Disclosure of Information"), there shall be added the following paragraph—
(d) for the purpose of enabling a water authority to enforce the provisions of this Act and the 1937 Act in fulfilment of its duty to maintain, improve and develop fisheries within its area by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 28 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975.".'.


Government amendment No. 33.
Amendment No. 34, in clause 33, page 28, line 28, after introduce', insert
'in respect of salmon or trout'.
Amendment No. 35, in clause 33, page 28, line 29, at end insert
`which is not in any way connected either directly or indirectly to a river'.
Government amendments Nos. 49, 50, 53 and 54.

Mr. Gummer: We have had an extremely interesting debate in Committee on a whole range of issues. I undertook to listen carefully to what was said to see whether we could meet some of the points raised by hon. Members from both sides of the House. One of those points is covered in new clause 10.
The clause concerns the disclosure of information collected under the fish farm registration scheme. That scheme was very properly set up for specific purposes. Parliament restricted the situations in which the information gathered under the scheme could be disclosed. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and other of my right hon. and hon. Friends stated that the scheme did not meet a particular need in combating fish disease because there were circumstances in which water authorities might need the information gathered under the registration scheme. As authorities have functions relating to the control of fish disease, it seemed correct, as fish disease is of such great importance even though few instances were involved, that we should meet the contention so helpfully put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. Therefore, new clause 10 will allow such information to be given to water authorities where the authorities can show that they need the information to fulfill their responsibilities under the Fish Act 1937. I believe that the National Farmers Union will be content with that approach in principle. I therefore hope that the new clause will be accepted by the House.
New clause 2 has two parts. I hope that the second part will become redundant under the circumstances of the proposed new clause 10. The first part deals with the offence of supplying live fish to a customer who has not obtained water authority consent to introduce the fish to an inland water if the supplier knew that the consent had not been obtained. I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking does not intend the supplier to be prosecuted merely for failing to ask the customer whether he had obtained the necessary consent. That would be out of proportion to the original offence on the customer's part. We have to assume that the supplier knew that the customer did not have the water authority consent to introduce the fish and that therefore an offence was commited under section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. In those circumstances, the criminal law already provides for the supplier to be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of an offence under section 44 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. The subsection is unnecessary.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the subsection is necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking has drawn my attention this evening to the anxiety which one water authority has in that matter. I have looked at the case as carefully as has been possible in the short time since that anxiety was expressed, but my advice is that section 30 of the 1975 Act would, in the circumstances which the water authority has raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, meet the case.
However, the Government's intention is to meet the worries which lie behind the first part of new clause 2. Obviously I will consider the matter further to see whether action should be taken. I believe that the subsection is unnecessary and I hope that we will cover the second part of the new clause 2 in new clause 10. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will be willing to withdraw his proposed new clause 2.
Government amendment 33 covers section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That makes it an offence to introduce fish or spawn into any inland water without the consent of the relevant water authorities. There is no right of appeal if the water authority says no.
Water authorities have a statutory duty to maintain, improve and develop the fisheries in their areas. The Government therefore accept that controls under section 30 of the 1975 Act are necessary to prevent release into rivers and other waterways of fish which could damage the existing fish population, for example, pike into a salmon stream. We consider, however, that section 30 represents a considerable and unnecessary burden for the general run of fish farms.
Deregulation forms an important part of Government policy and we shall take appropriate opportunities to remove unnecessary restrictions. That is what clause 33 seeks to achieve. There is no doctrinal view that we should remove regulation where it is valuable. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking and others have raised the point that there are circumstances in which the measure, which was not originally seen as a measure for the protection of fish and the elimination of fish disease, might be helpful. It might be helpful where there is a direct connection between a fish farm and other inland water where that connection might be a source of disease.
Under the amendment, we intend to retain the controls under section 30 of the 1975 Act on the introduction of fish or spawn into fish farms operating in cages or netted-off sections of rivers or other waterways. There are grounds for retaining controls on such sites because they are not insulated from other inland waters. The amendment would cover that area of real concern.
I know that my hon. Friends sometimes feel that we ought to go further and deal with cases where there is a connection with a conduit or ditch. Generally, fish farms connected by conduits come under water authority control because they will need the authority's consent to discharge effluent under the Control of Pollution Act 1974. I do not believe that the alternative amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking are necessary. If my hon. Friend's amendments were accepted, the only people who would no longer have the extra burden of section 30 would be those with fish farms completely unconnected to a river. Therefore, section 30 would continue to apply to the overwhelming majority of fish farms, most of which are connected to a river by a conduit. I do not believe that such control should continue to be applied to these sites. As I have said, these measures were not introduced to control disease, but ever since they were introduced we have shown increasing concern about fish disease.
There is legislative back-up for the action that we wish to take. We are extremely strict on occasions when we feel that there is a danger of increased fish disease. But we do not believe that this control is any longer necessary on that ground, and it is certainly not necessary on any other grounds. However, we accept the point made by my hon.


Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Onslow), and in the light of what we have been able to do I hope that he will accept the change that we have made.
I know that hon. Members feel strongly about fish disease. It is of enormous importance. We do not think that new clause 2 is the way to deal with the problem. We have the Diseases of Fish Acts which vest the principal responsibility in Ministers. It is important to do what we can under the legislation to place very tight controls on the movement of fish and eggs that are or may be infected by serious diseases.
It is important to reiterate the Government's absolute commitment to continue with the tough and tight controls on fish and eggs in order to ensure that we protect the stock. In view of what I have said, I hope that the House will agree to Government amendment No. 33 and that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking will withdraw amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
I think that we have the right balance between deregulation of a part of the Act that was not introduced for this purpose — but which some water authorities have found useful for part of the purpose — and the retention of that part that they may find useful.

Mr. Stuart Randall: The Opposition welcome the notion of disclosing information under the fish farm registration scheme. If powers have been granted to the water authorities, it seems quite absurd that earlier legislation has prevented the dissemination of the information that is needed in order to carry out their functions.
However, I wonder whether this measure goes far enough in the way in which it attempts to combat fish disease. I agree with the Minister completely that this is a very important matter, but do the new clause and disclosure do enough to stop disease, and do the water authorities have all the powers that they need in order to carry out this work?
I should like to paraphrase part of a letter that I have received from Dr. Ron Linfield of the Anglia water authority. He said that to improve our capability to enforce controls over both fish diseases and the introduction of alien or exotic species we needed an amendment to either section 7 or section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. That would create for water authority officers with particular responsibility for carrying out statutory fishery functions a right of access to the fish farm register and associated movement records held at each farm. He said that the amendment we needed to give special recognition to the role of the water authorities gave the general prohibition on disclosure of information by the MAFF that it had created in section 9. Does this go far enough or should not the new clause have been more comprehensive in order to restrict the spread of fish disease?
The Minister said that inland waters could be connected by means of conduit, but are rivers covered? Inland waters can be connected to other inland waters, but what happens when an inland water is connected to a river? That could surely be a source of disease.
We agree that the control of fish disease is crucial and we completely support the notion that there should be restrictions on the movement of fish as well as other controls.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for going a limited way towards meeting the amendments that I tabled. They are not a whim of my own but represent the collective view of the water authorities.
In general there seems to be a wide gulf between my right hon. Friend's Department and the water authorities over fish farms. In my experience, water authorities are in general not quite as happy to be persuaded by the NFU — the spokesman for the fish farms — as the MAFF sometimes appears to be. Perhaps I am being unfair to my right hon. Friend's officials—I probably am from time to time—but I think that a strong case is building up for a complete reform of the law relating to fish farms, not merely in respect of disease but also in respect of pollution, planning and other aspects of fish farming. We can perhaps return to that on another occasion as it will not be debated tonight.
My right hon. Friend has half met the intention of new clause 2. The half that he has not met should be taken a bit more seriously. Although I recognise that the correspondence that I put into my right hon. Friend's hands only half an hour ago—which came to me shortly before that from Dr. Linfield of Anglia—is difficult to digest, it nevertheless bears out the need for action in this area.
A particular case that the Severn-Trent water authority drew to Dr. Linfield's attention is an example of the sort of thing that happens under the law as it stands, and it is likely to happen more frequently after the law has been changed. In this case the North West water authority issued a consent for trout to be introduced into a farm in its region from a trout farm in Somerset. This source was cleared by the Ministry and the South West water authority, and the consent was issued. The fish were supplied but did not come from Somerset. The supplier named in the consent, in addition to being a fish farmer, also carried live fish about by way of trade, and he obtained them not from his own farm in Somerset but from a farm in Nottinghamshire belonging to the Severn-Trent water authority which was not informed of the destination of the fish.
When the fish were delivered to the site in the northwest, a fish disease was diagnosed shortly afterwards which was attributed to the supplying farm. The Severn-Trent water authority thought that was unfair, but when the whole matter was looked at it subsequently emerged that a different consignment of fish, for which consent was issued on the understanding that the supplier would be providing them, was in fact supplied from quite a different fish farm.
The complexity revealed in that brief summary shows that there must be precious little effective control in this area by MAFF officials and very little scope for relaxation if there is to be effective prevention of the spread of fish disease.
I wish that we had been able to go over this in greater depth in Committee—

Mr. John Home Robertson: Raise it in the 1922 Committee.

Mr. Onslow: I wish that the hon. Gentleman would not make stupid observations. When he is on his feet he is bad enough, and when he remains seated he is quite absurd.
I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's officials can be relying on the support of the water authorities for the


brief which they have given him. I doubt whether those interested parties outside official bodies, who take great interest and show much concern about river pollution, would endorse what my right hon. Friend has said. The adequacy of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is strongly contested by bodies such as the Anglers Co-operative Association, of which I am a council member. It takes a close interest in these matters and is better informed than many water authorities. I ask my right hon. Friend to ask his officials to give him the details of the West Beck case. That case illustrates how dangerous the pollution problem can be and how important it is to keep tight control over fish farms and the quality of the water which they release into our rivers.
Evidently my right hon. Friend will not be persuaded. I would let amendments Nos. 34 and 35 go by without calling upon him to make any further comment, but I must ask him to answer my queries concerning new clause 2. I await, with interest, what he has to say.

7 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is being persistent in this matter, because it is a cause of concern in many parts of the House. The potential for the spread of disease or the arrival of unwelcome species of fish is great. One only has to consider what happened when mink escaped into the wild in some parts of the country to realise that dangers could exist in the rivers.
I echo the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the Government for going some way but I cannot understand why the Government do not want to make these provisions as tight and reliable as possible. The Government, at a time of expansion in fish farming, should make sure that there is maximum control in these matters, as such expansion poses many dangers.
Many new entrepreneurs are attracted to the business and there are good people involved in the industry. If expansion is taking place, who knows whom it will attract? It is important that the water authorities should be able to control the situation. The fears which have been expressed by the hon. Member for Woking must not be realised. Our salmon and trout must not be endangered. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the arguments presented to him by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gummer: In reply to the questions posed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), we believe that the amendments go far enough to provide the information which is needed by water authorities to undertake their responsibilities under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983. If we did not believe that, we would have phrased the amendments in a different way. The hon. Gentleman was right to ask a direct question and he has got a direct answer.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West expressed concern about the phrase "inland waters". We used that phrase because, in law, they do include rivers, lakes, reservoirs, streams, etc. Rather than put all those words in, the phrase "inland waters" was used. I am sure that, in legal parlance, that phrase will cover all the examples.
The reason that conduits are mentioned—

Mr. Dennis Canavan: Cundies.

Mr. Gummer: Is that what I have to say to the Scots? I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. In fact I would not say

it in Scots because there are few examples of this type of fish farm in Scotland. Therefore, in this case I may use the English term.
A conduit refers to a particular kind of connection other than a ditch. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West was concerned that we should get the parlance right and I shall not tease him by asking whether he knows where rivers come or go. Nevertheless, one must specify both conduits and ditches. Conduits, in some cases, link the fish farms to the river and they are affected by the Control of Pollution Act 1974. The fears of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would be realised if we were suggesting a removal of control which lessened our power to deal with pollution. I have studied this matter in great detail.
The problem between my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and myself is that we have a differing view about whether this provision gives the additional protection necessary for the elimination and containment of fish diseases. That is the issue and it is a difficult one to resolve because we have both looked at the same facts and come to different conclusions.
I have had time to study the West Beck case. As it stands, there is breach of water authorities' consent under section 30 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. If the supplier knows that the appropriate consent is not being complied with, the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 makes it an offence to aid and abet in these circumstances. In this case, the supplier and the receiver are committing an offence.
The difficulty is that the legislation which we are largely rescinding under this Bill was enacted not for the protection of fish from disease but for other reasons. Those other reason are not now prayed in aid of retention: what we do pray in aid is the legislation's usefulnes in preventing disease from spreading.
I see no reason for retaining any more of the legislation than that part which will continue to be useful. If I thought that by retaining more of it, or all of it, we would in any way improve the protection of fish from disease, I would agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. I have not been so persuaded, and I do not believe that the House should be. Although I have studied the West Beck case with care, I shall reconsider it. If I find that there is some information therein of which I was not aware I will have further discussions with my hon. Friend concerning the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

USE OF BAITS AND LURES

' — (1) The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of this section, make regulations specifying baits and lures for the purposes of the definition of "rod and line" in section 24 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951.
(2) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section only on —

(a) application to him by a district salmon fishery board; or
(b) a joint application to him by more than one such board,

and regulations made in respect of such application shall be made only in respect of the district of the applicant.


(3) Regulations under this section shall specify, subject to such exceptions as may be provided therein, all or any, or a combination of, the following:—

(a) baits and lures or classes of baits and lures;
(b) times when the regulations apply;
(c) areas to which the regulations apply.

(4) An application under subsection (2) above shall be accompanied by the applicant's written proposals which shall state—

(a) the baits and lures which it is proposed should be specified;
(b) the places to which and the times during which the proposed regulations should apply; and
(c) the reasons for the proposals.

(5) Paragraphs 3 to 9 of Schedule 1 to this Act shall apply to the making of regulations under this section as they apply to the making of a designation order, and for this purpose—

(a) references to a designation order shall be construed as references to regulations under this section; and
(b) references to an applicant, and to an application, under paragraph I shall be construed respectively as references to an applicant, and to an application, under subsection (2) above.

(6) In section 24(1) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951, at the end of the definition of "rod and line" there shall be inserted the following — "and, in the case of fishing for salmon in an area to which and at a time during which regulations made under section (use of baits and lures) of the Salmon Act 1986 apply, is not specified in such regulations in respect of that area and time".'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 8 to 10.

Mr. MacKay: New clause 7 and the related consequential amendments Nos. 8 and 9 provide the regulation-making provision for baits and lures which I promised at Committee stage when considering an amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). It is a clause much in the style of clause 6 — the annual close time clause—in that it rests upon local initiative to start the ball rolling where there is a perceived need for some control over baits and lures.
Although under the clause regulations would be made by the Secretary of State at the request of a district board or boards, there are safeguards for those who may be affected or who may consider that regulation is unnecessary in the relevant district or districts. First, there will have to be some local consideration and discussion in the board and, of course, I remind the House, anglers will have a say because of their representation on the new boards. In addition, a baits and lures regulation would have to go through all the statutory procedures for designation and annual close time orders which require the Secretary of State to consult; to cause the proposals to be advertised; and to hold a public inquiry if he considers it necessary. There are therefore many safeguards against the possibility of capricious or ill-thought-out proposals being introduced. I believe that they are sufficient.
The Association of District Salmon Fishery Boards and the Salmon and Trout Association support the idea of powers to control the use of baits and lures. In discussion

with officials of the Department, representatives of the Scottish Anglers National Association were somewhat ambivalent, seeing advantage in some control, for example, on the use of shrimp or prawn, but unhappy about the risk of prohibition of the use of the worm in some Highland areas.
I hope that those who fear that they might be adversely affected by unreasonable regulations will be reassured by the arrangements for detailed consideration that are provided in the clause. There will be ample opportunity for opinions to be made known and taken into account before the Secretary of State decides to make any particular regulation or not. It should be noted that district boards have the power only to ask for regulations, not to make them, and also that regulations can be made for part of a district so that, for example, the upper waters of the river can be treated differently from the lower waters.
Amendment No. 10 is a minor, technical amendment to correct an existing omission. It gives my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State the power to amend section 10 of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859 as well as sections 6 and 11 if, on the application of the River Tweed council, he makes an order changing the annual close time on that river. That is a necessary consequential amendment, so that there shall be no inconsistency between the Act and the annual close time order.
I hope that my hon. Friends and others who took part in the interesting debate on the matter in Committee will welcome the decision that I have made to table the new clause.

Mr. Home Robertson: I doubt whether anglers with exotic tackle are a significant factor in the overfishing of salmon, but as the Bill provides so much scope for restricting other types of fishing, it is right that we should have the provision to regulate certain types of angling tackle at specified times. That is what the Minister is suggesting. It is fair enough that the district boards should be able to seek such regulations.
My only concern is that the device could be used for another form of discrimination against people whose faces are not thought to fit on Scotland's salmon angling beats. For example, when my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) next goes fishing in Scotland I trust that he will not run into any legal arguments with bailiffs about the nature of his fishing tackle just because he comes from Bannockburn while people from Tokyo, Chicago or even Woking are allowed to carry on fishing with the same sort of equipment.
If anyone doubts that such discrimination is possible, he need look no further than the Glasgow Herald of the ninth of this month. The Duke of Argyll was accused of indulging in some sort of illegal fishing operation, although admittedly it was with nets rather than angling gear. It was duly reported to the police, who sent a report to the procurator fiscal. According to the Glasgow Herald, the procurator fiscal said:
I sent the report to the Crown Office … My approach is anything involving people in the hierarchy, as you might say, I send off to Edinburgh.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West would be counted as a member of the hierarchy, but I suspect that if it was him there would be no question of the procurator fiscal seeking guidance from the Lord Advocate. My hon. friend would probably find himself in the dock at Dunoon sheriff court pretty damn


quick. But, seriously, providing the regulations in the new clause are enforced fairly, we shall be prepared to support it.

Sir Hector Monro: I thank the Minister for fulfilling the commitment that he gave in Committee that he would look at the matter favourably. I know that the district boards and the Salmon and Trout Association will be pleased that he has implemented it through the new clause. I am grateful to him.

Mr. Beith: I support the new clause. It is consistent with the principle that conservation should be the overriding objective, and that all sections and types of fishery should have conservation measures placed on them if a need can he shown. As the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, several other sectors of fishery are having extensive requirements placed upon them, and anglers must take their share, too. It is in everyone's interest that conservation should be carried out.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

SCOTTISH ANGLERS' TRUST

`(1) There shall be established a co-operative of anglers to be called The Scottish Anglers' Trust to administer and improve those angling waters under their control and to develop the sport of angling in Scotland.
(2) Membership of the Trust shall be open to all on payment of a subscription.
(3) Waters admininstered by the Trust may include those of public bodies leased at nominal rents to the Trust and those of proprietors willing to admit the public on condition that they are relieved of responsibility of organisation.
(4) The Trust shall be entitled to representation on District Salmon Fishery Boards in those areas in which angling waters are administered by the Trust.
(5) The Trust shall have the power to apply to the Secretary of State for an Access Order under the terms of subsection (5) below.
(6) The Secretary of State may, if satisfied that there is a demand for salmon angling in an area which cannot be met other than by the use of compulsory powers, make an Access Order. The Order shall specify: (a) the waters to which it applies, (b) the number of persons to be admitted at any one time, (c) the payment to be made to the proprietor, (d) the method of administration, (e) the season, (f) methods of fishing and (g) the routes and means of approach to be used.'. —[Mr. Home Robertson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would provide for the establishment of a national anglers' co-operative trust in Scotland, with power to acquire, administer and improve salmon and trout fisheries for the benefit of all its members. Membership would be open to everybody on the payment of a subscription. The new clause also provides for powers to establish public access to salmon and trout fisheries where it is the only satisfactory way of providing fishing rights for the public.
A new clause such as this is necessary because in many areas of Scotland salmon fishing is virtually exclusively retained for the benefit of those who own fisheries or can afford to pay high prices for a day's fishing. The Bill goes to enormous lengths to protect and extend the rights and privileges of proprietors of salmon fisheries. That has been

our main criticism, as my right hon. Friend the Minister well knows. The new clause seeks to achieve at least some balance by establishing a body to promote public access to fishing and to represent wider interests on the district salmon fishery boards.
I stress that we acknowledge and recognise the excellent work done by local angling clubs and associations in many parts of Scotland. However, it has to be said that salmon fishing remains an exclusive and expensive preserve for very rich people in many areas not covered by such an angling association. That is why we believe that it is necessary to take action to establish a Scottish anglers' trust.
It is not only the Labour party that is concerned about this aspect of salmon fishing, because back in 1962 the then Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland, John Maclay, who might be remembered by some hon. Members present, set up a committee to report on Scottish salmon and trout fisheries. The committee was chaired by my eminent constituent Lord Hunter. Its second report, published in May 1965, made several recommendations. I shall not go into detail, but I commend to the House and the Government paragraphs 108 to 126. The report specifically recommended the establishment of a Scottish anglers' trust and a system of access orders to provide public access to fisheries.
The Bill could have been a golden opportunity to combine better protection and conservation of salmon stocks with fairer administration of fishing rights and better public access to enjoy that part of Scotland's natural heritage, but inevitably the Government and their backwoodsmen in the other place have chosen instead to reinforce proprietorial privileges and to do little else. That is one of the reasons why we fear that the Bill will fail to conserve salmon. It discriminates blatantly in favour of certain vested interests. It has to be said that inherently contemptible laws tend to be treated with contempt.
New clause 3 would go some way towards restoring the balance and promoting public interest in conservation and angling. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I understand the thrust of the new clause and have considerable sympathy with it. If the Bill and the consequences that flow from it ensure that there are more fish in Scottish rivers, we should then take measures to ensure that there are more fishermen to take advantage of the fishing. In view of my constituency interests and the wider interests of angling in Scotland, I feel that what we should be looking for in the long run is an expansion of leisure fishing in Scottish rivers, with the increased numbers involved, because the economic benefits that would flow from that would be fairly substantial and widely spread.
The benefits that accrue to my constituency from salmon fishing stem from the number of people who come there when the fishing is good, and who spend money in the local economy, in the hotels and pubs and on the services in the area. I should like to see more people doing that. To the extent that a measure such as the new clause would achieve that, I would support it. However, I believe that if the Labour party had really wanted to press the matter and table a new clause that could carry widespread support, it would not have gone as far as it has with the powers that it proposes to establish.
The Government will not accept the new clause under any circumstances. If such a clause had been passed by a


Labour Government, a Conservative Secretary of State would seek not to implement any of the powers in it. It would be preferable to establish a trust which was likely to work outside the ambit of day-to-day party politics, and which went hand in hand with a policy of ensuring the maximum number of fish in Scottish rivers and giving the maximum number of people the opportunity to catch those fish, thus increasing the activities of the salmon fishing industry in Scotland.
That ought to be the spirit behind the Bill and our desire that it should be passed. Regrettably, however, as the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said, the Bill is deficient in a number of ways, but that is not the point to highlight. I am not convinced that the Bill will achieve effective conservation.
I have considerable sympathy with the new clause. I support the establishment of a Scottish anglers' trust. However, the powers that the Labour party seeks would result in a move too quickly and too far in the other direction. Therefore, I am unable to support the clause as it stands. The establishment of such a trust is, however, desirable.

Sir Hactor Monro: The only good point about the new clause is that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) moved it briefly. He did not have the courage to say that it would result in the nationalisation of Scottish rivers, nor did he bother to say where all the money would come from to buy out Scottish riparian owners. He did not bother, either, to give sufficient credit to the very large number of angling associations and private owners who let fishing rights at very moderate rates throughout Scotland. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) knows that when he came to fish in Dumfriesshire he was able to fish for salmon for £5 a day. That is a modest fee.
Although all hon. Members want as many anglers as possible to be able to fish, what is needed is more conservation so that more fish become available for fishing. I should prefer that, rather than the purchase of privately owned water to be made available for public use. Opportunities are provided for those who want to fish. I hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will resist the new clause. It is unnecessary.

Mr. Donald Stewart: One would have hoped, although I admit that it was a forlorn hope, that when the Government decided to introduce the Salmon Bill it would have led to the conservation of salmon and to more public access. Unfortunately, the main thrust of the Bill is to set proprietorial rights in concrete instead of increasing public access.
Fishing rights in Scotland are confined to a very small minority. I challenge the basis of the salmon fishing legislation. It is wrong that rivers which have been in existence for countless thousands of years, and the fish in those rivers, should be the property, by virtue of legislation, of a tiny minority of wealthy people. I support the clause unreservedly. It would be a start if the public were able to have more access to angling waters. Then they would develop an interest in the conservation of salmon stocks.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I too, support the new clause unreservedly. I am fairly

certain that those who support it do not envisage that anglers will be standing shoulder to shoulder along the river banks of Scotland. However, access must be widened. I am certain that the angling clubs in my constituency would welcome wider access.
In some instances the return of the salmon has been very largely due to the fine work of public bodies. I mention as an example the River Clyde Purification Board. Salmon are again to be seen in the Clyde. The heart of this clause is access to this very fine sport. It should not be confined to a small group of very rich people, as is the case in many instances.

Mr. Canavan: I support the new clause wholeheartedly. I tried to introduce a similar clause in Committee. Unfortunately, on account of its lack of wisdom, the Committee did not accept it. This is a very moderate clause.
At least twice I have tried to introduce a private Member's Bill on the Floor of the House. Its purpose was to establish a democratically constituted Scottish anglers' trust. I point out to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) that the opposition to my Bill at First Reading was led not by the Tories, from whom one would expect opposition, but by the leader of the once great Liberal party, because of his vested constituency interest. Therefore, we saw what at one time was national Liberalism being reduced to narrow-minded parochialism.
Therefore it is hard to swallow what the hon. Member for Gordon said about his party having considerable sympathy for this new clause. It may be that in his heart of hearts the hon. Member for Gordon has considerable sympathy for the new clause, but on this issue he has been nobbled by his party leader, in the same way as other members of his party have been nobbled on defence by their leader. However, I shall not dwell on that matter. I know that they are very embarrassed about it and I do not like to see people being embarrassed.
I should like a far more radical measure to be introduced that would extend the ownership of fishing rights in Scotland. The new clause would help towards that end, but it is no secret that I should prefer there to be complete public ownership of all the freshwater fishing rights in Scotland. It is unfair for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) to claim that this new clause would bring that about. My private Member's Bill would have achieved that aim, although it would have resulted in a decentralised form of public ownership rather than in nationalisation.
The ownership of fishing rights in Scotland is very much connected with the history of land tenure in Scotland. The owner of fishing rights is frequently the riparian landowner. That applies in particular to very lucrative fishing rights. We should try to democratise Scotland's most popular sport. The Scottish Sports Council says that over 500,000 people participate in freshwater fishing. Football is thought to be tremendously popular. Last night there were about 50,000 people at Parkhead for the European cup tie, but over 500,000 people participate in freshwater fishing. Because it is such a tremendously popular sport there is understandable concern among the participants, particularly among those on low incomes, that they do not enjoy a reasonable degree of access. The new clause would improve access and bring about a gradual widening of ownership.
The hon. Member for Dumfries referred to compensation. If a genuine request for compensation were made by those who had invested in fisheries and in restocking and conservation, I believe that clubs would be more interested in preferential terms of access rather than in financial compensation. I am sure that a measure such as this could be introduced for next to nothing in terms of financial compensation. If a group of people in an angling club put a great deal of work and investment into a particular stretch of water, surely a deal could be struck between the Scottish anglers' trust and the local angling club whereby the club received a certain number of rods per year on the river. Presumably, there would be an overall limit on the number of rods. With the Scottish anglers' trust, there would be an opportunity for democratic participation in the rules for the distribution of rods, access, permitted tackle, permitted times, prices, and so on.
7.30 pm
There is no doubt that, in many cases, people who claim compensation have no moral title to do so. Whatever legal title they have, they certainly have no moral title to compensation. Their title to fishing rights is very much tied up with their land ownership rights. That is based on the hereditary principle. When I first introduced my Bill to establish a Scottish anglers' trust, I read out the names of those who were involved in applying for a special protection order in the Tweed catchment area. It read almost like a House of Lords Division list. Almost all were hereditary peers.
The names included the Marquis of Lothian, whose boy is in the Scottish Office; the Duke of Roxburghe; the Duke of Sutherland; and Lord Home of the Hirsel, who I believe before he died in a previous incarnation was called the 14th Earl of Flume. He got his land and fishing rights from the 13th Earl of Hume. The 13th Earl of Hume got them from the 12th Earl. The 12th Earl got them from the Ilth Earl, and so on. The first Earl of Hume stole them from the people. Hon. Members who do not accept my version of history in terms of stealing land and fishing rights from the people might say that the land was gallantly fought for.
I remember the story of a man who was caught by the local landlord allegedly for poaching. The landlord said, "Get off my land". The poacher replied, "Who said that it's your land?" The landlord said, "I'll tell you this, my boy, my ancestors fought for this land. That is how it is my land." The poacher replied, "Get your bloody jacket off now and I'll fight you for it." That is the morality of land tenure in Scotland. Hon. Members laugh, but it goes back to the battle of Bannockburn. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) laughs because it is true, and he appreciates my saying it. Going back to the battle of Bannockburn, the land was fought for. Some people changed sides at half time because they found they were in danger of being on the losing side. They changed their jerseys at half time just to ensure that they were on the winning side to get the land, fishing rights, and so on.
It is about time that the balance was restored, and that we returned land and fishing rights to the people. I do not expect all hon. Members to agree with my radical ideas. The new clause does fall short of my ideas, but it is a good measure. It is interesting to note that even people such as Lord Hunter, who is not a great friend of mine, have come

out with similar proposals. I hope that the Minister and the House will sympathetically consider accepting the new clause.

Mr. John MacKay: We have had this debate on a number of occasions. During the first half of the speech by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) I thought that he had lost the tape of his usual speech. However, during the second half he was back on stream. I wondered when the list of the people who came forward with the Tweed order would come before the House. The hon. Gentleman is well known for his devotion to a Scottish anglers' trust. As he rightly told us, he sought leave of the House to introduce a Bill in 1979 with the intention that the trust would be eligible for Government funding. Leave was refused on that occasion. He tried again in 1984, and he was no more successful.
On both occasions, as he said, he was opposed by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel). A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West rebuked the right hon. Gentleman for looking after the interests of his constituents. I did not know that looking after constituents' interests was a vested interest. My constituents, like those in the borders constituency, did not want the anglers' trust that the hon. Gentleman was seeking. He wanted it because some of his constituents want to fish on the highways and byways of Scotland. They want to go where they like and fish by whatever method they like. That has caused great problems in the Tweed valley, the Tay valley and in many other parts of Scotland, including my own.
On both occasions the trust would have been concerned with freshwater fish — brown trout, grayling, and the like, but not salmon. The trust which he proposed in Committee would have had power over salmon in fresh water but not in salt water. It would have had no power over brown trout and other freshwater fish. The trust as proposed in the new clause would have power over salmon angling in Scotland in fresh or in salt water.
The principal argument is always that people cannot get salmon fishing, yet the hon. Gentleman told us that over half a million people fish in Scotland. I know that some people fish only for brown trout. However, many fish for both. Of course, there are some extremely expensive beats. I recall that a sporting event took place in Mexico at the time of the Committee stage. I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman then, and I do so again, that £1,000 a week for more than one rod, perhaps eight or 10 rods, to fish on some of the expensive beats does not compare unfavourably with the £1,000 it would have cost a person to follow Scotland to Mexico to see the World Cup matches. One pays at the top range for one's sport if one wants to play at that level. If a person wants to pay a rather more modest price, as most of us do, he can find places all over Scotland where he can pay a modest price to get at some fairly good salmon fishing aside from members of angling clubs who can have access to some good water through that angling club.
In Committee, I said—Opposition Members will not be surprised to hear it again—that the Government could not accept what is essentially a doctrinaire proposition. It infringes unfairly on the rights of those who own salmon fishing rights in Scotland. Nothing that I have heard tonight makes me wish to change my mind. I do not want to go through the clauses in detail. However, new clause 3(5) states:


The Trust shall have the power to apply to the Secretary of State for an Access Order".
That is not a democratic arrangement. There is no provision for appeals or for public and local inquiries. There is no consideration of the proprietor's position. Effectively, the Secretary of State is asked to exercise compulsory powers over land for the benefit of the anglers' trust or its members without any of the normal safeguards of individual rights.
I shall not continue. I do not suppose that the House is surprised by the line I take. Apart from a few people who wish to fish where and when they like, and by what means they like, I do not believe that there is any great demand in Scotland, outside the doctrinaire ranks of some parts of the Labour party, for such a body, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his new clause. If he does not do so, I am quite sure that most hon. Members will agree with me.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 4

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SALMON CONSERVATION

(1) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretaries of State acting jointly shall within three months of this Act coming into force, establish an advisory committee to consider such matters relating to the conservation of salmon as the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State or any of them shall from time to time refer to it.
(2) The Committee shall present its first report to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State no later than twelve months after the coming into force of this Act and thereafter annually on the anniversary of the first report.
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsections (1) and (2) above, it shall be the duty of the advisory committee to consider in the aforementioned first report whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretaries of State or any of them should be conferred with powers which would enable a scheme or schemes to he introduced for the better regulation of salmon fisheries including the more effective collection of catch statistics.
(4) The advisory committee may appoint sub committees for England, Wales and Scotland to report upon such matters and at such times as it considers appropriate.'. — [Mr. Randall.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Randall: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 5 — Measures for conservation of salmon—
'(1) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State or any of them may, for the better regulation of salmon fisheries in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section (Advisory Committee on Salmon Conservation) by order made by statutory instrument make such provision in relation to the conservation of salmon as they consider appropriate, including a provision for prohibiting persons in such cases as may be specified in the order, from being in possession of salmon to which a tag authorised and issued by a responsible authority has not been affixed.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above any order under that subsection prohibiting persons from being in possession of any salmon to which an authorised tag has not been affixed;

(i) May make provision for the following matters:—


(a)the type of material to be used in the manufacture of the tag, its method of construction and the manner of attachment to the salmon,
(b) the individual numbering of tags and for tags of different descriptions to be issued to different persons for different purposes;
(c) the specification of the duration of the validity of tags and make provision for the return of unused tags to the issuing responsible authorities;
(d) the creation of criminal offences consisting in the contravention of or failure to comply with provisions made under this section; and
(e) the enforcement of any provision made under this section.

(ii) Shall be such as to secure that the following persons shall not be guilty of offence:—

(a) any person licensed as a dealer in salmon in accordance with the provisions of an order made under section 28 of this Act, by virtue of his being in bona fide possession of an untagged fish prior to disposal; and
(b) any person who imports a salmon into any area which is subject to an order made under this section, other than for the purpose of dealing in salmon or otherwise gaining from its disposal.

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (2)(i) above, an order under this section may—

(i) make different provision for different cases; and
(ii) contain such incidental, supplemental and transitional provision as appears to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State, or any of them, to be necessary or expedient.

(4) No order shall be made under the section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of each house of parliament.
(5) In this section "responsible authority" means, in relation to England and Wales, the relevant water authority and, in relation to Scotland, the relevant district salmon fishery board.'.

New clause 6—Measures for the better regulation of salmon fisheries—
'(1) The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State or any of them, may, for the better regulation of salmon fisheries in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of section (Advisory committee on salmon conservation), by order made by statutory instrument make provision for a scheme or schemes which will facilitate the more effective collection of catch statistics by providing for the tagging of all salmon lawfully taken within England and Wales or Scotland.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, an order under this section may make provision for the following matters.

(a) the type of material to he used in the manufacture of the tag, its method of construction and the manner of attachment to the salmon;
(b) the individual numbering of tags and for tags of different descriptions to be issued to different persons for different purposes;
(c) the specification of the duration of the validity of tags and the return of unused tags to the issuing responsible authorities;
(d) the creation of criminal offences consisting in the contravention of or failure to comply with provisions made under this section; and
(e) the enforcement of any provision made under this section.

(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above, an order under this section may—

(i) make different provision for different cases; and
(ii) contain such incidental, supplemental and transitional provision as appears to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State, or any of them, to be necessary or expedient.



(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Amendment (a) to new clause 6, leave out subsection (4), and insert—
`(4) No order shall be made under this section unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

New clause 9—Moratorium on net fishing in River Tay—

(1) The Secretary of State for Scotland shall lay before Parliament, before 31st December 1986, an order for a moratorium on all net fishing for salmon in the River Tay and its tributaries.
(2) The order for a moratorium and any order to amend or end the moratorium shall require the approval of the House of Commons by affirmative resolution.'.

Mr. Randall: New clause 4 deals with the establishment of a statutory advisory committee on conservation, new clause 5 provides enabling powers for the Minister to introduce conservation regulations and new clause 6 deals with the more effective collection of catch statistics.
In June we were delighted when the Minister of State came to the Standing Committee and announced as a concession to the Opposition that he intended to establish an advisory committee.

Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Randall: I shall not give way immediately, because I have only just begun.
The purpose of the advisory committee is to collect more accurate information and to establish effective fishery management regimes. I was pleased when the Minister made that announcement, and I have read Hansard carefully to see what he said.
Some hon. Members were genuinely concerned about the slant of the Bill. We had been working on it for some weeks and we did not seem to be addressing fully—at least certainly not to my satisfaction or to that of hon. Members on both sides—the issue of conservation. We were spending most of our time debating who would be represented oil the boards and the fight between netsmen and rod-and-line men— I see Conservative Members nodding—and we were greatly worried. I was delighted when the Minister attended the Committee—because he obviously recognised that the Bill was in trouble—and announced the establishment of the advisory committee. Essentially, we have bolted on to the Bill the advisory committee, which will deal with conservation, among other matters.

Mr. Gummer: I have checked this matter carefully, and I want the House to be fully aware of the discussions in Committee. I announced the proposal for an advisory committee in response to the cogent arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and other right hon. and hon. Friends. I want to make that point because it would be churlish of the hon. Gentleman to claim parentage for this committee. Obviously he wishes to extend its arrangements, but to claim parentage when it lies with my hon. Friend would be a pity.

Mr. Randall: To judge from the representations that I received, I thought that the Minister had been listening to people with fishing interests. I have talked to some of them and I thought that it was that pressure, as well as other pressure, that had led to the committee. However, I do not

wish to suggest that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) did not play a significant role. The Opposition take the committee extremely seriously. We certainly do not regard it as an expedient which got the Minister off the hook when the Bill was in such a mess.
It is interesting to see on the Amendment Paper the number of Welsh Members, as well as English and Scottish Members, who support the new clause. It shows the seriousness with which Welsh Members take the question of fishing in Wales, which is good. I would go so far as to say that the Welsh economy relies heavily on fishing. Indeed, it is so important that the Minister's credibility is at stake over the operation of his new advisory committee. We expect him to deliver on this.
Because of the importance of salmon fishing in Wales, I have received representations about the duration of the advisory committee. It has since been suggested to me that the Minister said that it would last for three years. I have read Hansard, and I cannot find that. Will the Minister tell us whether that will be the case? I would prefer him to be open minded about the matter, and if the committee serves a useful function to consider that, rather than have a fixed time scale for it.
New clause 5 refers to tagging for regulation purposes. In a transaction, salmon would have to have to be tagged or labelled. There would be exceptions, but that would be the general thrust. The major short-term interest for Wales is to develop a more effective system for creating catch statistics. Scottish fishing is in such poor shape that it is crucial to proceed with effective conservation action as soon as possible. Is the Minister sympathetic to using tagging techniques purely for developing statistics.' Will he encourage the advisory committee to give fair and clue consideration to that matter? Tagging is important both for statistics and as a useful pilot scheme, so that if at a later date the committee so decides we can use tagging for licensing and regulation schemes.

Mr. Onslow: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He seems to be making a case for statistics. What is wrong with the present method of collecting statistics in Wales?

Mr. Randall: I can answer that simply. In Committee, as many hon. Members mentioned, we received information that people were generating statistics and cases to serve their own ends and interests. The Minister spoke at length about that, and I agreed with what he said. We need an unbiased source of information about migration patterns, what fish are where, and so on. In Committee I could not feel confident abou.t the information that we were receiving or whether we were making the right judgments. Will the Minister keep an open mind about the use of tagging for catch statistics as a pilot scheme?
In Committee various hon. Members said that tagging was not popular in Scotland. I have received information that the main reason why many Scottish fishermen are worried about tagging is that they are afraid that the cost will be added to the licence fee. I do not know whether the Minister has also picked up that information.
From the beginning, the advisory committee should have been the core of our measures to improve conservation. It is the most important matter that we shall discuss tonight. I want the committee to be durable. I do not want the Minister to disband it for various reasons. I


certainly want it to be effective. Will the Minister tell the House whether he feels that he has all the necessary powers to implement all the possible future recommendations of the committee? If that is not so, it could constrain the committee. For those two reasons — durability and effectiveness — I should like this to be a statutory advisory committee. My hon. Friends and I feel so strongly about this that, unless the Minister gives some concessions tonight, we shall seek to divide the House.
Concern has been expressed about the representations on the committee. I hope that the Minister takes this as seriously as we do. We hope that the chairman will be truly independent, and that the committee will represent a broad and appropriate range of interests, especially relating to Wales. I hope that the representation from Wales will comprise people with experience of fishery management, and not just fishermen. My hon. Friends and I will be most interested to hear the Minister's views on overall representation on the committee.
New clause 6 is a fallback clause for the better regulation of salmon fisheries by using tagging to produce better catch statistics. The reason for tagging is simply to conserve fish. Fishermen in Wales believe that tagging can, and will, work if given the chance. It is important that the Minister has an open mind on this, and I shall be interested to hear what he has to say in response to the various issues that I have raised.

Sir Hector Monro: I welcome the comments by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) about the advisory committee. This concept was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).
I agree that the new clause concentrates on conservation. The Government have taken two steps in this direction—first, by setting up the standing advisory committee. I hope that it will begin work soon, report continuously and not keep the House waiting. There is also the Government review which will report within three years on east coast drift netting. Both are important steps. However, the Bill has insufficient provisions for conservation and the future of salmon.
I am sure that the Minister knows that today the International Atlantic Salmon Symposium has been meeting in Biarritz. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has a representative there who will be taking a note of what is said. I understand from the director of the Atlantic Salmon Trust that an important conservation resolution was passed today. I must admit that neither my shorthand nor the telephone line were particularly good, but it stated:
In view of the greater increase in and potential of salmon angling, and its appreciable smaller harvest, each national Government of salmon-producing countries is urged to declare a salmon policy which will institute conservation measures within its area of jurisdiction, a management programme to reduce commercial harvesting of salmon with a view to increasing stocks, and improving recreational salmon catches.
I hope that the Government will take some action to implement this resolution at the earliest opportunity. I would be grateful for the Minister's views on this, and on the International Salmon Symposium.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman apologised for his shorthand. May I ask him if the

resolution contained a last paragraph relating to payment of compensation to those in the commercial salmon fisheries who would lose their livelihoods if Governments were to adopt the resolution?

Sir Hector Monro: No, there was no such paragraph. The resolution ended with the remarks about improving recreational salmon catching. It is still early days; let us get the principles right, and then we can deal with the details.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Surely my hon. Friend would not object to compensation in principle.

Sir Hector Monro: My hon. Friend knows that we dealt with such proposals on an amendment in Committee when I expressed the wish to phase out—I emphasise that it must be phasing out — drift netting on the north-east coast. Of course, compensation would have to be paid because we would be removing their livelihoods from a substantial number of people who fish in those waters.
Conservation is at the heart of the Bill and in this we have been supported throughout by the chairman of the Salmon and Trout Association, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the district boards. We all want to see more fish in the rivers so that we can increase the stocks. I have been disappointed that the Bill does not go very far, especially in relation to drift netting off the north-east coast. We do, of course, appreciate that there would be an impact on jobs, but Scotland faced that problem some years ago and survived the difficulties.
New regulations will reduce the pressure on drift netting off the north-east coast. People are beginning to understand the balance between the numbers who fish off the north-east coast as compared with those people in the United Kingdom as a whole who benefit in one way or another from salmon fishing. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has said, the tourist industry, the hotel industry and the many people who support salmon fishing would all be affected.
We must consider one statistic especially. Between 1950 and 1959 catches of salmon and grilse off the north-east coast averaged 2,000 per year; from 1970 to 1979 that figure was 48,140; between 1980 and 1984 it was 60,330; and in 1985 it was 77,000. The rivers cannot stand this dramatic increase, which is why our stocks and catches are falling. I warmly support the article in The Times yesterday by Lord Moran, who has done much in another place to increase the conservation provisions in the Bill.

Mr. Tinn: The hon. Gentleman seems to be quoting selectively from statistics. Figures supplied to me by the Northumbrian water authority show that during these periods there have been normal cyclical variations in catches. For instance, in 1976 the salmon catch was only 4,500, the year before it was 21,000 and a year later it was 14,000. In other words, it is an up and down story. It was meaningless of the hon. Gentleman to talk about averages.

Sir Hector Monro: I disagree. I was dealing with averages over a period of 10 years which I think allows for ups and downs in the cyclical life of the salmon. Anyone involved in fishing knows that. It is important to realise the dramatic increases that have occurred in salmon catches, probably as a result of the modernisation of gear and of monofilament nets, none of which existed in the early days of the fisheries.
Whatever action the Government have taken already, they will have to go a great deal further before we shall be


able to see an enhancement of stock in the rivers of the United Kingdom. If we do not set our own house in order, how on earth can we expect those interested in fisheries in the Fames, in Greenland or even off the coast of Ireland to take any action? We must take some action because at present we are falling very flat on our faces. The advisory committee must take the strongest possible measures in recommending to the Government the appropriate course of action.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister replies to the debate he will give us an emphatic assurance that he will listen to what the advisory committee says and then take action. We do not want a ghost-like committee making reports that are shelved and nothing happening. We have not got anywhere near solving the issue of conserving a remarkably important resource. If we do not take much stronger steps than we have taken so far, the future of rod salmon fishing in Scotland in particular, and, indeed, the fixed nets around our coasts, will be seriously curtailed. The time for action is not too soon.

8 pm

Mr. Ted Rowlands: As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) said, many Welsh Members have signed the new clauses, some of whom, like my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), will not speak, although I think that I can speak for him and certainly for a number of others. I also speak as the president of the Welsh Anglers Council, a body which covers coarse, game and sea fishing. It is remarkable that it should have got all those anglers together to work in one direction, but it has been doing so and they are unanimous on the principles and ideas behind the three new clauses.
The Welsh scene is the only one that I can really speak about. It is worth reiterating, at least to make sure that the public conception of these matters is right, that large-scale illegal fishing in Welsh rivers is no longer the story of the romantic poacher catching one for the pot; it is big business and highly commercialised. It involves refrigerated vans near the bank and considerable battles on the banks between our bailiffs and those unscrupulous people who will take violent action to ensure that they get their illegal catch.
Another feature of the Welsh scene, different from the Scottish scene, is that Welsh angling is extremely popular. It is not exclusive. The sport is run primarily by responsible angling clubs and the charges and fees are not expensive. The petition that I presented to the House last night contained 18,600 signatures of people supporting the principles of these three new clauses and was promoted and brought by popular angling clubs such as Llandysul, Tawe and Tributaries and Tregaron — all genuinely representative of the communities and the people who enjoy the sport of fishing.
That is why in the three new clauses we seek, first, to inject a sense of urgency into the process. As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) said, time is not on the side of the salmon or on the side of conservation. The decline is serious, and we have not been able to chart it effectively. The Welsh water authority, a strong supporter of these proposals, was surprised and shocked by the decline shown by the 1982 inquiry which it could not anticipate. It realises that a severe decline has taken place and that it has not been properly discovered and charted.
In new clause 4 we say that the establishment of the advisory committee cannot be a genteel leisurely affair. Therefore, as we say, we hope that it will be set up within three months, if not sooner. Obviously one issue will be the personnel. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West, and he is reflecting the views of the Welsh angling fraternity, that we do not want fishermen to give and support the professional advice that we think will be necessary.
The Minister should take powers to introduce a scheme for tagging. That has caused division within the Committee and even among friends who, on a cross-party basis, have worked hard to implement conservation measures. In new clause 5 we are asking only that the Minister takes the power. Obviously, we would like him to implement a tagging scheme, but new clause .5 only requires the Minister to take power now so that if the advisory committee finds and convinces him that a tagging scheme is an essential part of the conservation of salmon stock it can be introduced without the need to come to the House for a full-scale new Bill.
Let us be realistic. We have vast experience of such legislation. I have had 20 years and other hon. Members have had even longer. We know that to get a Bill into the annual timetable and to bring a measure before the House through the Cabinet sub-committees and so on is not an easy task. Therefore, even with an early realisation that tagging was an integral and intrinsic part of conservation, we fear that two, three or four years would slip by before legislation could be enacted to give the Minister power to introduce such a scheme. All that we are asking for in new clause 5 is that the Minister should take the necessary power.
Within the Principality there is unanimity. The Welsh are not notorious for unanimity. Indeed, the reverse is the case. We can usually divide happily and easily amongst ourselves. But there is a consensus bordering on unanimity among all the interested parties and groups that tagging could be introduced, at least in the Principality. With the popular support that there is for such a scheme, we could run a pilot scheme within the Principality.
The hon. Member for Dumfries mentioned the important conclusions and considerations of the symposium at Biarritz. Another major announcement that has come out of that symposium is an announcement by the French representative that the French intend to introduce a full-scale nationwide tagging system next year. I have the details of the outline here. Tagging has now been seen as a national solution to the problem of conservation by the French, not just the Welsh or a small group of interested and fanatical fishermen. Mr. Claude Batault, special adviser to the Minister at the conference, has announced that the French will introduce a nationwide tagging system to cover both rod and line, commercial fishing, commercial fishing at sea and imports. The French do not think, as I think the Minister argued in Committee, that that contradicts GATT. The reasons given at the symposium for the French introducing tagging were conservation and better catch statistics. That double purpose is contained in new clause 5 and in our fallback position in new clause 6.

Mr. Onslow: It is fair to remind the House that there are fewer salmon in French rivers than in Welsh rivers and


that the French proposal to limit any one rod angler for salmon to a total catch of four in a year might be inadequate in Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: The details of the introduction of a nationwide scheme would be for the advisory committee to advise on. That is the purpose of new clause 4. It seeks to make sure that the advisory committee makes salmon tagging an urgent priority and considers the proper means of implementing it. But here is one nation which, fearing the threat to its salmon stock, is to introduce a nationwide scheme. Therefore, it is not just a sectional interest of fanatical Welsh anglers which is promoting this concept; there is a great deal of support for it.
The Principality supports the principle of tagging. Tagging will complement the licence dealing system, not duplicate or contradict it. They go together. Together they could be an effective system of conserving and collecting statistics which we in Wales feel are woefully inadequate. I hope that the Minister will not turn his back on the petition signed by more than 18,500 anglers and supporters of angling right across the country who support the proposals in the three new clauses that we have brought to the House tonight.

Mr. John Townend: We all support the cause of conservation, but the new clauses are deficient because no mention is made of the damage done to salmon stocks by seals. Salmon stocks will not be adequately protected until we grasp the nettle and deal with the sensitive question of the need for a much greater culling of seals. They are destroying North sea fish stocks, including salmon, at a frightening rate.
According to a recent estimate, there are 84,000 seals in the North sea, taking approximately 50,000 tonnes of fish a year. I have been told by fixed-net salmon fishermen who fish off the beach at Bridlington that often up to one in four of the salmon that they catch are not saleable because they are dead or because they are maimed after being bitten by seals. Unfortunately those animals, which look so attractive and receive so much sympathy when they are culled, are very much like foxes. They do not just attack a salmon and eat it but are like a fox which kills all the chickens in a hen house rather than killing one and eating it. The seals take indiscriminate bites out of salmon, often leaving them alive and maimed, thus making them unsaleable.
I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister to this problem, and express the hope that when he considers conservation measures he will support the demands of the Bridlington fishermen for a greater culling of seals.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: If the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) has made the strongest arguments he can against the new clauses, they must commend themselves strongly to the House. I associate myself with the comments that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. They are particularly relevant to the Welsh salmon fishing problem. As the hon Member for Methyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said, angling in Wales is a popular sport. It is the ordinary person's pastime and interest, and probably the greatest participatory sport in Wales.
I have had 200 letters about the Bill from anglers in my constituency. They were worried that it concentrated on

the problems of Scotland. We appreciate that that is necessary, but the Bill does not address itself to the problems of fishing in Wales, and especially the conservation of salmon stocks in Wales.
Whatever the problems caused by the seals taking a part of the migration salmon stocks — obviously they take some—it is difficult to believe that they are taking any more than they took in centuries gone by. Yet historically in Wales salmon fishing has been a popular sport. Salmon have been available in Welsh rivers for centuries. Now, suddenly, in the past decade or two salmon have become scarce.

Mr. Townend: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the seal population in the North sea has quadrupled during the past 20 years. Naturally, if there are four times as many seals they are likely to take four times as many salmon.

Mr. Wigley: I was interested to hear of the seal tagging exercise that gave the hon. Gentleman such detailed information on the number of seals. I am taking a longer view. I am looking back over the centuries. There is no doubt that during the past couple of decades there has been a massive drop of salmon numbers in Welsh rivers which is not due just, or mainly, to seals. Obviously they play a part in the reduced salmon stocks, but it is not a major part.
Hon. Members who know the angling scene in Wales know what is happening. We know, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, that it is not the traditional poacher taking the odd salmon here and there. We have all lived with that as part of the social scene. Now there are large-scale operations. Poachers come with gelignite and blow up rivers. Other poachers come with poison, God help us. The rivers are poisoned and made barren for years.
8.15 pm
We know from court cases that people have come from Manchester and raided rivers such as the Dyfi and then received a sentence of a few months when they should have received a much severer sentence. The cumulative effect of their actions has been massive.
Representations have been made, especially to hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies, by the Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association. In a letter, it said:
The Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association wish to bring to the Government's notice that the angling community of Wales is deeply concerned that the conservation provisions contained within the existing Salmon Bill are totally inadequate as far as Wales is concerned. Since 1976 the Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association have campaigned vociferously for measures to be introduced to save the Welsh Salmon stocks. We as the governing body are concerned that in terms of conservation the present Bill does nothing to safeguard the run of migratory fish to their spawning beds and consequently to increase the spawning potential.
I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House fish on our excellent rivers, such as the Conwy, the Dyfi and the others mentioned by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), as I know of her husband's great interest in this matter. I know his patience in that he could spend 10 or 11 hours in debate in the House or in Committee. He needs that patience to fish for salmon in


rivers such as the Dyfi now. Ten or 20 years ago it would not have been surprising to talk of catching half a dozen or a dozen salmon. Now it is a matter of special interest and a topic of conversation if somebody has caught a salmon. People say, "Oh—you have actually caught a salmon.- That is the change that has occurred. The Government must take this problem to heart.
There are two main requirements. We want to give the advisory committee teeth and to include on it people who fish in Wales. I mention Wales especially, because I know the problems there. The committee's job is ongoing and it must be given teeth to do it. There is also a need for tagging. Information is needed about the salmon if there is to be a scientific base on which to found further action to conserve the salmon stocks.
Such proposals are supported by anglers and those involved with the water authorities. The bailiffs often face a difficult task in trying to enforce regulations. All sections of the community in Wales support these proposals. It would be sad if the Government missed this opportunity. Indeed, if they miss this opportunity to rectify the situation, I am sure that the problem will be raised again in private Members' Bills.
This matter is very important to my constituents, and that is why I am here tonight rather than at my party's annual conference. I hope that the Government will seriously consider the new clauses and either accept them as they are, or give a firm commitment that they will move in their general direction.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: All of us have taken a close and active interest in the proceedings on the Bill. I welcome the Welsh voice which is in such strong and full throat tonight, and many of the comments that have been made. Indeed, I share the concern of the Welsh Members. The problem does not just concern Wales, although perhaps, judging by what we have heard tonight, the problem is even more serious there than in some Scottish rivers.
Having examined the culling system, I am not convinced that tagging in the United Kingdom would fulfil the objectives that have been ascribed to it as successfully as some of the hon. Members think. After all, the alternatives proposed by the Government go a long way towards meeting the fears of right hon. and hon. Members.
I refer, for example, to the dealer licensing system. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who introduced those Welsh anxieties, will bear in mind that when the Bill was introduced there was no question of a nationwide licensing system. It was limited purely to Scotland, and this was one of the big changes the Government made in their thinking. Those two measures are most helpful.
In Committee, Conservative and Opposition Members expressed concern about the need for further action. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have taken a keen and assiduous interest in the Bill, and will be aware that it has its critics both in the House and outside. The Bill represents a great opportunity. As we all know, such opportunities do not come easily, and in the foreseeable future this is probably the last chance to legislate for salmon. That is why we have all stressed the need for more action than that proposed in the Bill. Perhaps that is the main reason why Opposition Members want a statutory advisory committee.
As we all know, if the British can fumble and fudge anything, they will do so by setting up a committee. The fear is that, if we set up a committee that is not statutory, that is just what will happen. The arguments that we adduce in favour of stronger action will be whittled away and drowned in the mumbling away of a committee that has no powers. Accordingly, if my right hon. Friend the Minister decides to go against those who want a statutory advisory committee, I hope that he will at least give us a strong assurance that this Bill will not he the end of the matter. There are strong grounds for believing that further action is needed, and we would expect that committee to be able to report with authority, and in a way that would morally bind the next Government to take action.
The new clauses mention statistics. It has been extraordinarily difficult to get hold of statistics to prove to doubters that we are facing a serious situation. Consequently, we are all very much indebted to the Salmon and Trout Association, which has taken up the cudgels on our behalf. In Committee the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave figures that have enabled analysts to relate netting jobs to specific rivers and areas of Scotland. The association asks us to recognise that its calculations are only approximate, and not accurate to the last decimal point. As a result, it believes that the number of netsmen involved is small, and at times as few as 520. At peak periods, the number rises to 1,177. Using the 1984 catch figures, and assuming a landed value of £2 per pound, the average earnings per man amount to just over £1,000 for net and coble fishermen. The figure is higher for fixed engine fishermen. The association points out that earnings fluctuate wildly between districts, and rise to more than £6,000 in the far north.
The association believes that in the north of Scotland some 70 netsmen take around 86 per cent. of the salmon catch, amounting to 46,000 fish. It argues that we should be much tougher in our attitude to those who fish by net in estuaries or who fish at sea using drift nets. I agree with that, and that is why the Bill falls short. We should increase the weekly close time for Scottish nets to 60 hours. However, that has been rejected by the Government.
The committee set up by the Government should look at the figures carefully and take action accordingly. The figures all suggest that salmon and sea trout have much more economic value as a sporting resource to the economies of Wales, England and Scotland than as a food. Moreover, some of us believe that we are approaching the point of no return in the damage being done to a great natural resource. The factor uniting fishermen and others is that we want to conserve the salmon. With those thoughts in mind, I shall listen with interest to what my right hon. Friend the Minister has to say.

Mr. Tinn: I should like to correct an impression that I may have given the House on Second Reading. I then mentioned Dr. Derek Mills of the department of forestry and natural resources at Edinburgh university, and, without having sufficiently checked my facts, I rather loosely referred to him as having changed his mind. I said that he had been a critic of the drift net fishermen of northeast England but that he had now exonerated them.
More in sorrow than in anger, Dr. Mills kindly wrote to me pointing out my error. It was wrong to say that he had exonerated them, although he and other fishery scientists had shown that the current low in salmon catches in Scotland and other salmon-producing nations was


cyclical, occurring about every 25 years in the past 100 years. They believe that that can be attributed to oceanic conditions. However, Dr. Mills fairly said that that did not automatically mean that the north-east England drift net fishermen are exonerated. Perhaps I made that rather welcome assumption too easily. However, I have already apologised to Dr. Mills, and I am happy to correct the impression that I gave.
The drift net fishermen of the north-east of England are rather like Banquo's ghost, in that, although they are not mentioned in the Bill, they keep popping up, just as they did in Committee. The drift net fishing industry in the north-east of England is essentially small scale. It uses the traditional north-eastern coble, which is rather less than 30 ft. Only 182 vessels are involved. Far from being a free-for-all, it is the most tightly controlled fishery in Europe.
I have a few suggestions for the advisory council. For example, it should consider the policy pursued by the Northumbrian water authority. That authority and the drift net fishermen could already give some useful tips. For many years they have had a strict limit on licence numbers. The authority has formed conservation areas for salmon in areas and rivers where salmon tend to collect. In the north of the water authority's area, the length of drift nets at sea is restricted to 600 yd and to 400 yd in the Yorkshire area. The working week and the season are also limited. Moreover, the licensee can employ only those crew named on the licence.
The protection of stocks has been a central theme, and, in contrast to elsewhere, there has been a marked recovery in salmon stocks in Northumbrian rivers. It seems a little odd that the poor Scottish salmon cannot get up to the Tay, yet they are getting to the Tyne and the Tweed in increasing numbers. I assure hon. Members that our fishermen are not asking the nationality of the salmon and throwing them back if they are English.
I am sure that the advisory committee will be happy to look at the practices of the Northumbrian water authority, and the north-east coast fishermen will be happy to cooperate with the authority and in any conservation measures. However, conservation measures to save salmon must not mean the extinction of the drift net fishermen of the north-east coast.

Mr. Charles Morrison: In the light of what the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) said, the House should recall that it has been clearly established that 94 per cent. of the salmon and grilse taken in the North sea fishery are bound for Scottish rivers. No matter what statistics the hon. Gentleman provides about the nets, we must take account of that important aspect.
I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and others that the Bill does not do enough for conservation. However, I regard the Bill as no more than the end of the beginning of the creation of a better climate for conservation. It is no more than a start and, as time goes by, it will become clear that more measures will have to be taken.
One of the best indirect forms of conservation is that provided by the creation of, and the increase in, salmon farming. In the 12 months up to September this year, 11,000 boxes of Scottish wild salmon were sold at Billingsgate market, but during the same period 43,000

boxes of Scottish farmed salmon and 51,000 boxes of Norwegian farmed salmon were sold at the market. For some reason that I do not understand, boxes of wild salmon are slightly heavier than boxes of farmed salmon.
The comparison is remarkable and it emphasises a point made implicitly by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) who said that salmon should be considered a sport resource. Because of the development of salmon farming, we no longer live in an age when wild salmon need to be regarded as a food source.
The need for an advisory committee is self-evident. It is clearly essential. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on taking the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—

Mr. Randall: And others.

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Woking, who tonight probably became the first chairman of the 1922 Committee to be described as the Opposition, was the originator of the proposal. He and, of course, others deserve credit for persuading the Minister to accept the idea. I believe that the advisory committee will play an increasingly important role and will perform not only the functions set out in new clause 4, but many others as well.
I am convinced that, as soon as the announcement of the establishment of the committee was made, it automatically became durable. Politically, no Minister would dare to abolish it; that would be a political impossibility. Therefore, I am not convinced that we should make the committee a statutory body. Indeed, if it is not a statutory committee it may retain more flexibility and perhaps could stray into areas that need looking at, but which it might not be able to examine if it were a statutory body.
I understand the desire of Opposition Members who wish to have a statutory committee, but it seems to me much more important that the committee should be established quickly and should act quickly. Even if the Minister cannot give us the names of the members who are to be appointed soon, I hope that he will tell us when the committee will start to operate. That would be a great reassurance to the House and, more important, to all those involved in salmon fishing.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I wish to speak about Welsh interests. As a lifelong angler who belongs to a Welsh angling club, I support new clauses 4, 5 and 6 because they are vital for the conservation of salmon stocks.
We are at the 11th hour. Salmon are a disappearing asset and many fishermen do not catch even the four salmon per season to whch reference was made earlier. I challenge the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) who said that the collection of statistics would not be improved by the tagging of salmon. The Welsh water authority is collecting statistics and supports the tagging of salmon. Indeed, it has on the stocks a programme for salmon tagging, because it believes that better statistics could be provided under such a scheme. That is a potent argument.
It is important that we do not make the advisory committee just another quango. Members must include people with knowledge and interest and members of local organisations who know what they are talking about and, in particular, know a lot about the management of fisheries.
It is important that a tagging scheme is introduced at the earliest moment after the establishment of the advisory committee. We have not a minute to waste in the conservation of Atlantic salmon.
I wish to put on record the input to the new clauses from the Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association, the Welsh water authority and many Welsh angling clubs. Mention has already been made of the 18,000 signatures on petitions in favour of tagging. It is important that any tagging scheme should include imported fish and farmed fish, though I recognise that that would create difficulties. However, I am closely associated with agriculture, where all stock is tagged as a matter of routine, and I do not believe that it should be too difficult to tag salmon, whether they are farmed or taken in the wild.
We are in the stone age in our recording of salmon. We know very little about the true catch. Tagging will enable us to know how many salmon are caught, and that will enable us to improve our fisheries.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman should not minimise the problems for fish farmers of tagging stocks. Many of the fish farms in Scotland and Shetland and in the islands are small businesses and tagging, however admirable a practice, would present formidable problems for such small businesses.

Mr. Livsey: I note the remarks by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I accept that there are some problems but they can be overcome. It should be possible to tag farm fish in the same way as it is possible to tag farm animals. Salmon have to be boxed before they are marketed and they can be tagged when they are being prepared for the market. I see nothing difficult in that. In response to my speech on Second Reading the Minister said that he would consider the possibility of a Welsh tagging scheme. I hope that he will accept that the views on this side of the House are strong. They are the views of Welsh fishing interests and of those who are actively engaged in angling in Wales. They consider this to be essential for the future of salmon fishing in Wales.

Mr. Onslow: You have been generous, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in allowing us to have what is virtually a Third Reading debate on these new clauses. That will save a lot of time and enable some Scottish Members to catch their trains. I shall make no apology if I keep one or two Scottish Members a little late. Indeed, some of the things that I propose to say may be of assistance to them.
The Minister told us that he would introduce an advisory committee. I think it really is rather impertinent for the Opposition Front Bench to try to claim parentage for that committee. They have no title to it. The committee is probably the most important thing to come out of our Standing Committee deliberations. I hope that the Minister will tell us a number of things that will give encouragement to those hon. Members who have taken a close interest in these matters for a long time. That does not include the Opposition Front Bench.
The need to make progress is perceived all the more when one considers that we have had to take this Bill in the spillover session. We might have started to deal with a number of matters at the end of the summer if we had been able to complete consideration of the Bill then, and it is a mat ter of regret to many people that we were not able to do that. However, such things happen. I hope that the

eagerness of the Scottish Minister responsible for these matters will not be frustrated by our delays. I hope that the period of thought that my right hon. Friend the Minister enjoyed during the long recess will have enabled him to formulate some fairly clear ideas about what the committee will do and that he will tell the House about them tonight. He may not be able to tell us the precise membership, but I hope that he will be able to tell us the names of the people whom he has invited to serve and the names of those who have agreed. He would do the House a service by telling us what he foresees as the composition of this committee.
Although most of the debate has been about Wales, it must be admitted that there are far more salmon in Scottish rivers than there are in English and Welsh rivers, more is the pity. It would therefore be wrong to deny the Scots a proportionate share of representation on the committee. Of course we do not want on the committee people who are landed proprietors and who take no interest in their fisheries—[Interruption.]— such as the hon. Gentleman who has just made a loud noise from a sedentary position.

Mr. Gummer: I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Government will not ask the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) to play a part in this committee because, as my hon. Friend says, he has not yet taken the same interest in his own fisheries.

Mr. Onslow: I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that.
Apart from the membership of the committee and the balance of its composition, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us about staffing. Perhaps he will also tell us where it will be located. I do not even mind if the Committee is preponderantly Scottish provided that its headquarters are in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than in Scotland. In many ways it is easier to get at MAFF and to twist people's arms and it is MAFF that probably needs its arm twisted most in these matters. That is purely a personal opinion. A more important point is whether the Minister can tell us more about the activities, duties and responsibilities with which he will charge this committee. In Committee we were much encouraged to hear that seal predation was high on its list of tasks. I share the anxiety about the effect of the enormously increased numbers of seals on the north-east coast that prey on salmon stocks.
The matters aired under new clauses 5 and 6 puzzle me. Perhaps I could look first at new clause 6. It is extremely difficult to understand how it can be said that salmon tagging will be an aid to more accurate catch statistics. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) has his Welsh water authority licence in his pocket, but if he has—presuming that he has such a licence—he should look at it some time. He will see that he is required to make a fairly exhaustive return of any fish that he is fortunate enough to catch. I do not see how a requirement on him to tag fish when he takes them out of the water will have the slightest effect on the accuracy of his statistics or will be of assistance to the Welsh water authority.
If someone were quick enough to find a stretch of water in Wales between now and Saturday in which he could fish for salmon and caught a hen fish and, if he were a sensible


chap and returned it to the water, what would he do about that? Would he put a tag on it and bless it before returning it to the water? If the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor thinks this through he will understand that salmon are not like cattle. One cannot have fish swimming around in a river with tags in their gills in the way that cattle walk around the market with tags in their ears. First, one has to catch the salmon. What possible benefit to statistics is contained in new clause 6?

Mr. Wigley: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that Mr. W. J. Ayton, the principal scientific officer of the Welsh water authority, has written to Welsh Members pressing for such a tagging scheme to be introduced. His reason is that the officers need this information in order to undertake their work. They are the experts and surely we ought to listen to them.

Mr. Onslow: We might listen to the scientist in the Welsh water authority if he could show why this clause should also be applied to England and Scotland. There has been no argument to show why it should be so applied. It may be and probably is a Welsh idea, but that does not automatically mean that it is a good idea to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. Even the Welsh nationalists may understand that point of view.
The genesis of the salmon tagging scheme for the Welsh water authority area is embodied in new clause 5. That is not a conservation or statistical measure. It is designed to make it possible to catch poachers. I am extraordinarily surprised that we have not heard more about that purpose, because this scheme is designed to prevent the sale of illegally caught salmon.
Let us go back to the beginning. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) takes an occasional interest in these matters and he probably remembers the amount of work that was done by the water authorities to control the sale of salmon. He probably has a copy of the exhaustive report produced by Dr. Gordon Bielbey and his team in which the salmon tagging scheme was recommended. If the hon. Gentleman looks closely at it he will see that it was in order to prevent the sale of illegally caught fish and not for conservation, although poaching is a major threat to salmon stocks.
The hon. Gentleman does the House and the Department a discourtesy if he supposes that everybody who takes an interest in these matters did not look closely at the practicability of this scheme. I know that Ministers looked closely at it. I discovered from conversations with them that they were not convinced that it was practicable to introduce such a scheme. I was disappointed to learn that, but ultimately I was convinced that they were right. If one looks at the implementation of the salmon tagging scheme, its weaknesses become quite clear quite soon. It depends upon the issue of a great number of tags and their application to fish that have been legally caught. A man with tags can apply them to fish that he has caught illegally. That is a major flaw in the scheme.
In respect of Wales, the major flaw is that its rivers are so close to England, if they do not actually form the boundary. If there were not a salmon tagging scheme in England that made it an offence to possess a salmon without a tag, that would be an open invitation to every poacher in Wales to take his illegally caught fish across the border as quickly as possible. Indeed, that already happens

because modern poachers are so mobile. Poachers from Monmouth and Hereford poach in the Conwy with dinghies and gill nets. Recently two men from Monmouth were caught with more than 50 salmon valued at £1,000, representing a loss of 13 per cent. of the average rod catch in a year.

Mr. Livsey: I wish to clarify one point. The proposed tagging system does not mean tagging fish and then releasing them back into the water, but only tagging those fish that stay out of the water and are sold. The hon. Gentleman's remark about the men apprehended in Monmouth emphasises my point. If they were apprehended with salmon that were not tagged, it would be the end of the story. They would, quite rightly, be prosecuted. We all know that industrial poaching in Wales is severe.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman is wrong because the men from Monmouth were prosecuted under current law and their car and tackle were seized. Therefore, there was no need for a tagging scheme to deal with those poachers. The three men from Hereford were using a dinghy and gill nets to poach the Conwy. If they had succeeded in returning to Hereford before being caught, they would have had no difficulty in disposing of the fish. We must catch the poacher on the spot. Whatever longstop scheme is being considered, the important safeguard is enforcement on the river and prevention of an illegal catch on the spot.
The Welsh water authority says that on the river Dee 150 boats are standing by ready to poach salmon. All this talk about salmon tagging would not come from Wales to anything like the same extent if it were able to field the necessary number of water bailiffs on the spot. If the rivers were actively protected, that would be the most beneficial defence. I hope that we do not lose sight of that.
The proposed dealer licensing scheme will also need to be monitored by the committee. We have yet to be told how it will work. If the scheme does not stop the illegal catching and sale of salmon, we will have to consider what further step is necessary. Again, I think that the best defence will be the water bailiffs. An elaborate bureaucracy built around the movement of metal tags will not be anything like as efficient as a man and a dog on the river bank.

Mr. Rowlands: I acknowledge the great deal of work done by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of those with trout and salmon interests. However, all those to whom I have spoken in Wales, including those in the front line, believe that a tagging scheme will be an important and integral part of their work of identifying what is legally or illegally caught fish. The hon. Gentleman questioned why the scheme should apply in England when it is a Welsh provision. I point out that both new clauses state that the provisions can be introduced in different cases if so desired. There is flexibility in our proposal.

Mr. Onslow: I should be more ready to accept the hon. Gentleman's argument if the proposed committee were already in existence and had reported on that matter. I hope that he will understand that a water bailiff who is trying to prevent poaching of salmon from his stretch of water is keen and skilled in the detection and prevention of illegal fishing. Whether or not illegal fishermen have tags in their pockets or satchels is neither here nor there. If the tagging scheme is to be of value, it must apply to


salmon offered for sale. Dealer licensing exists to control the sale of salmon. I have heard no argument that shows that tagging is likely to be more effective than dealer licensing or why it is necessary to run the two schemes as complementary to each other.

Mr. Rowlands: I apologise for intervening again. Our point is that we believe that the two schemes are complementary—they are not alternatives. How, under the dealer licensing system, will anyone but the dealer know whether the fish was legitimately caught? At least if a fish is presented with a tag, the dealer will know that it was legally caught. If the fish does not have a tag, the dealer can question the bona fide character of the person offering it for sale.

Mr. Onslow: Perhaps, like me, the hon. Gentleman would be better to suspend judgment on that matter until we are told how the dealer licensing system will work and be enforced. It is premature to insist upon the introduction of tagging for salmon offered for sale. The provisions of new clauses 5 and 6 go much further than was originally suggested.
I am not anxious to detain the House any longer than necessary. I end as I began by saying that the Minister, in what he will say to the committee at the end of our debates, has an opportunity to show people both within and without the House that he is serious in his wish to promote the conservation of salmon in British rivers. I hope that he will give evidence of that by witnessing—especially in his MA FT' responsibility — the fact that water abstraction, water pollution, the land drainage schemes and the afforestation schemes that affect the character of so many rivers—especially in Wales—and which have done such damage to Welsh rivers by turning them into gutters that simply carry away the run-off are matters as serious for the conservation of salmon stocks as anything that we have been discussing. I hope that the advisory committee will be encouraged to turn its attention to these matters as well as the other matters that have been discussed.

Dr. Godman: I promise to be brief. I regret that I was not a member of the Standing Committee, because I was assigned — or condemned—to the Social Security Bill Committee.
I wish to make one point about the exchanges tonight. When listening to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, I was reminded of the charges levelled by Louis Macneice against Oxford dons, when he said that they had charm without warmth, and knowledge without understanding.
What is needed is an advisory committee. That is why I support new clause 4. However, I have some reservations about the system of tagging, especially, as I said earlier, for fish farmers. Many of the companies are very small, and some employ no more than two or three people. They are frequently situated in exposed areas and work under difficult circumstances. I know that farmers also work under difficult circumstances, especially hill farmers, but I have reservations about tagging because of the problems faced by the very small enterprises in the islands off the coast of Scotland.
I should like to hear a few words from the Minister on the membership of the committee. I should like to know something about the chairman, although that will not be possible at this moment. I have no doubt that the Minister

and his officials will choose the chairman with considerable care. I have no idea whether he will be a radical in terms of the approach to modern methods of conservation. However, I hope that such a committee will examine the commercial salmon fisheries on both sides of the border with equal care, because not all the damage inflicted upon rod fishermen in Scotland is inflicted by English drift net fishermen. I do not know much about the damage inflicted by the seals in Bridlington bay. The seal expert is present. I do not claim to be an expert on the eating habits of the seal.
9 pm
I want to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). He voiced his concern for the Scottish salmon fishery. A salmon beat owner said in the Glasgow Herald recently:
Angling in the upper and middle Tay in June, July, and thus far in August has been like playing golf at Gleneagles with no holes on the greens.
There is a serious problem.
That owner's concern over the activities of English drift net fishermen was shared by the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in its report on fisheries protection. One of the recommendations in the report was:
There should be a ban on monofflament nets in all UK coastal waters, and the northern English drift net salmon fishery should reduce its catch to traditional levels, leading ultimately to its being phased out, with financial compensation.
That is, understandably, a somewhat biased recommendation, since there is no mention of the activities of commercial salmon fishermen in Scotland.

Mr. Beith: Did the hon. Gentleman not think it reprehensible that when making that report the Select Committee did not take any evidence from any representative of the North-East Salmon Fishery or any of the bodies involved in regulating that fishery?

Dr. Godman: As a member of that Committee, I am willing to accept that that is a fair criticism, delivered strongly by the hon. Gentleman.
Damage is inflicted by commercial interests in Scotland. The same copy of the Glasgow Herald stated:
The biggest of the Tay netters, the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company … reportedly sent more than 600 boxes of salmon and grilse to London during July, while the netsmen of Insch … and Barony fishings despatched more than 500 boxes in the same period. That does not take account of the salmon sold to local hotels and fishmongers, sold on Edinburgh arid Glasgow fish markets or on the major north of England fish markets or to the Scottish smoked salmon industry.
If we are to criticise commercial salmon fishermen, we have to be fair-minded. Such fair-mindedness, perhaps understandably, was completely missing from the intervention of the hon. Member for Dumfries. The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) offered a much more reasonable criticism and suggested that the weekly hours given over to net fishing should be reduced, and that makes a great deal of sense.
The committee should be in a position to commission research and monitor the commercial fishing activities on both sides of the border. If it examines the English drift net fishery, it must also analyse, in an equally rigorous way, the commercial activities north of the border. Such a committee must reflect the differences in the importance of the salmon fisheries in the countries that make up the United Kingdom.

Mr. Canavan: I strongly support reasonable conservation measures, which is why I have tabled new clause 9, calling for a moratorium on net fishing on the River Tay and its tributaries. In Committee we had many debates in which hon. Members on both sides called for a proper balance between the interests of rod and net fishing. Emphasis was put on the number of jobs involved in net fishing as well as the number of jobs involved in the spinoff tourist industries connected with rod fishing.
I do not want to interfere in the patch of other hon. Members who represent the interests of their area. My amendment refers to the River Tay and its tributaries only. It may be that the River Tay is sui generis. Some evidence was published in the Glasgow Herald on Monday 21 August, in an excellent article by James Freeman — it has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) —referring to reports that
Tay salmon netting interests have caught an estimated 20,000 fish during low water in the month of July … Ian Mitchell, managing director of Tay Salmon Fisheries and himself a keen angler, said yesterday that it was possible that the 20,000 figure was correct … Mr. Michael C. Smith, an elected member of the Tay District Fishery Board … said: `These netsmen are doing more damage to our Scottish stock than all the Greenlanders, Faroese, and Northumbrian fishermen and the poachers and the seals put together.'
This is a serious case of overfishing with nets on the lower reaches of the river, and the people on the upper reaches whose jobs are involved in the sport of angling are suffering the consequences.
By coincidence, on the day that that article appeared in the Glasgow Herald, I went fishing on the River Earn, a tributary of the River Tay, with a friend of mine. I spent the whole day there and caught nothing. That is not unusual with me, because I am not a good fisherman. I go fishing simply to get a bit of fresh air and recreation and to look at the countryside, and if I catch any fish, that is a bonus. However, my friend is an expert fisherman, and he also caught nothing. That is no wonder when one looks at the evidence of the overfishing that is going on in the estuary of the River Tay.
There are about 25 netting stations in operation on the lower reaches of the River Tay and one company, the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company, owns more than 100 netting stations. Granted it does not operate them all at the one time, but that shows the capability of one company to overfish those reaches of the river. The Government must take radical action to stop that. Ironically, the only action which the Government are proposing with regard to the River Tay is a protection order governing the upper reaches of the river, which will inhibit the opportunities of rod anglers. The Government ought to be attacking the net anglers in the lower reaches of the Tay, not the rod anglers in the upper reaches.
Of course there is concern about jobs. However many jobs there are in net fishing on the River Tay, there are more than 30,000 jobs in the Highlands dependent upon rod fishing. I submit that that figure is far in excess of any estimate which the Government can produce about the number of jobs in net fishing on the lower reaches.
Following the Committee stage of the Bill I half expected some letters of protest, because not everyone agrees with everything I say. I cannot understand that sometimes. After my contributions in Committee I expected a host of letters from trade union interests representing the netsmen on the River Tay, from the

netsmen themselves, or from the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company telling me how important the netsmen are for employment prospects in the Perth area. However, I received not a whimper of protest. I wonder whether any other hon. Members of the Standing Committee received any whimpers of protest about employment prospects.

Mr. Home Robertson: I assure my hon. Friend that I am not going to whimper. In fact, I agree with everything that he has said. I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the Minister was kind enough to send us a list of the number of people employed in the net fisheries on the various rivers. The list shows that about 162 people obtain employment, often of a seasonal nature, on the River Tay. I acknowledge that my hon. Friend's point is a serious one and that there is probably a need to review the fishing effort, but I believe that he is going a little far in seeking to write off those jobs straight away. Perhaps he should adopt a more softly, softly approach.

Mr. Canavan: I have experienced working at the net fishing on the River Tay. When I was a student more than 20 years ago, I had a job working on the River Tay during my holidays from university. At that time — and I suspect that the position has not changed much — the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company mostly employed and exploited students and temporary cheap labour. There was no trade union and we were paid 5s. an hour. We were not asked whether we could swim, and we were sent out in a boat into the middle of that fast flowing river, and beyond, to lay the net.
Because of the low level of pay and the danger involved, I do not believe that these jobs are worth defending. I shall not stand on the Floor of this House or anywhere else and defend them. The Minister may defend those jobs, but there are of course vested interests in the Tory party in that respect. It is not just the Duke of Argyll who is apparently illegally net fishing on Loch Fyne. Lord Mansfield, a former Minister, with a specific responsibility for the pre-legislative stage of the Bill, has a vested financial interest in the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company. I suspect that the muted attitude of Ministers and the Government Front Bench on that matter speaks for itself.
It is time that we took firm action against the people who exploit workers and the rivers, who are acting to the detriment of those who love salmon fishing as a sport, and who are also acting to the detriment of the employment prospects of those in the Pitlochry area and other areas further up the River Tay. I shall never defend such organisations as the Tay Salmon Fisheries Company, many of them the same inherited landlords to whom I have referred previously, whose motto seems to be, "I shall not sow, I shall not grow, but by heavens I shall reap."
9.15 pm
It is about time that justice was restored. All that I am proposing is a moratorium for a trial period. I have not even said for how long. If, after several months or years, it is found that a complete moratorium is too strict, it will be up to the Secretary of State to come forward with alternative proposals. We would then have the opportunity of debating them. That surely would be a far more democratic way of deciding the matter.

Dr. Godman: I remind my hon. Friend and the House that the Scottish fisheries Minister recently banned commercial fishing on Loch Ryan. Therefore, there is a precedent.

Mr. Canavan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning that precedent. What I am proposing is not unreasonable or unprecedented, and I ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Beith: I welcome the setting up of the advisory committee. The new clause is about trying to firm up the details of the creation of the advisory committee, and perhaps the Minister will say something more about it.
I hope that the committee's membership will be sufficiently widely drawn to enable it to draw on the wide expertise that is available on salmon matters and to reflect the range of interests involved. It should not be a committee of interests, but it should contain people who understand the different fisheries and economic interests involved. It should not be seen to be biased in any particular direction.
As for the tagging proposal, I moved the new clause in Committee that would have enabled the Welsh water authority to have its wish to carry out a tagging experiment within Wales. We pressed the Minister extremely hard, but in the end he resisted. Subsequently, in his absence on important duties elsewhere, it fell to his hon. Friend to resist. I felt that, had the Minister been able to listen to the full and persuasive argument advanced in all parts of the Committee, and had he been present with his full authority, he would have been able to give a little more ground than did the Scottish Minister.
It is a perfectly reasonable request that this experiment should he carried out. It is an experiment upon which scorn has been characteristically poured by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who can rarely speak for very long without sounding either scornful, patronising or both. I hope that some day he will give that up.
Many people in the Welsh water authority who have a great deal of experience genuinely feel that this would be useful. It would make prosecutions easier and would ensure that the provenance of salmon held or transported anywhere in Wales had to be demonstrated. That is a perfectly sensible proposal. Wales is not an area in which there has been a great expansion in fish farming. The main expansion has been in Scotland, and the problems that can be dealt with there do not arise so acutely in Wales as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
The Welsh water authority should have been given its opportunity to carry out this experiment. There is now a fear that, were the salmon advisory committee to become persuaded that it would be a good thing, the powers do not exist to carry it out because they are not on the statute book. Ministers would thus have to come back to the House, with all the pressures of the legislative timetable, and seek an opportunity to bring forward another Bill. That is not very satisfactory.
I tabled a small amendment to the new clause designed to ensure that the House would have the opportunity to vote on the implementation of the tagging scheme rather than be confined to the extremely unsatisfactory negative procedure. I well know that that would be quite satisfactory to the movers of the new clause and to the Welsh water authority. I am disappointed that the Government have not moved further on that point. What would they do if the salmon advisory committee decided that such a scheme was desirable?
That brings me to the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), echoed briefly by others, on the north-east salmon drift net fishery. No fishery has been

subject to more detailed restriction and control than that one. In conjunction with passing the Bill, many new controls and restrictions have been placed upon the northeast salmon drift net fishery. It now has far longer close time than any in the Bill or advocated for other fisheries. The weekly close time for the north-east salmon drift net fishery is 84 hours as opposed to 42 hours in Scotland, although there has been an argument for a slight increase in that Scottish 42-hour close time.
The hon. Member for Dumfries amazes me by his apparent conviction that the rivers on the west coast of Scotland are suffering great deprivation because of what takes place in the north-east salmon drift net fishery off the north-east coast of England. It simply cannot be the case that the west coast rivers of Scotland are so drastically affected by what goes on off the north-east coast of England. The effects of the north-east salmon drift net fishery—scientific evidence has shown it affects less than 7 per cent. of the Scottish catch—must be concentrated on the English rivers along the Northumberland coast, which have generally improving salmon catches, the River Tweed, which flows through England and Scotland, and a number of east coast rivers in the south-east of Scotland.
The north-east fishery cannot be held responsible for salmon catches around the entire Scottish coast. The vast majority of fish are caught by commercial netsmen in Scottish rivers. I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) that the only convincing case for a reduction in the salmon catch in Scotland is to reduce the commercial netting catch in Scotland. If the north-east fishery was banned tomorow the impact on Scottish rivers would be limited. A great many people would lose their livelihood for little gain, but it would be absurd if nothing was done about Scottish commercial net fishing.
All the decisions should be taken on the basis of conservation and a reasonable balance between those who have traditionally obtained their livelihood from salmon fishing and the need for conservation. That idea appears to have permeated the Government departments involved and it is present in the Bill. I welcome the fact that Ministers have realised that the livelihoods of different groups of people are involved. One cannot simply wipe away people's livelihood, especially if the effects would be as limited as the evidence suggests.
It is interesting to note that the condition of some of the rivers in the north-east is not as deeply depressing as the condition of rivers in other areas, especially Wales. Anyone who has studied the Tweed recently will notice that there are large numbers of fish in it. That has given rise to a good deal of poaching and the Tweed commissioners have had to take on a number of extra bailiffs.
A week ago I went to Norham in my constituency arid saw for myself a river full of salmon. There was an extraordinary sight of an angler playing a salmon on his hook while other fish popped up around his boat, sticking their heads out of the water. A marvellous photograph of that event appeared in the local newspaper—taken no doubt not far from the stately dining room window of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) as he gazed down upon the scene. The photo shows the angler with the salmon on his line and another popping its head out of the water only yards away.
Such a situation has arisen partly because of the low level of water in the River Tweed, and many fish were unable to get further up the river. It is not true that salmon


in the river Tweed represent a collapsing resource and that sooner or later there will be none in the river. It is a resource that has to be carefully conserved and the best scientific advice must be obtained to ensure that that conservation takes place. All the interested parties must be given fair treatment.
These are the principles which we sought to keep in the Bill and which the Minister sought to enshrine in the Bill. Some of the restrictions placed on the Northumberland fishery will bear hard upon it but those fishermen recognise that they and others have to take their fair share of conservation measures. It is in their interests as well as everyone's that there should be salmon for everyone to fish in the future.

Mr. Gummer: I am pleased that we have had a long, important debate on the new clauses. It is perhaps the most important series of issues that will be raised on Report.
I accept very much the view of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), that we should take the advisory committee very seriously, which he does. When the Bill was already prepared in large measure, I thought it worth while, as I came to it afresh, to look closely at the most contentious issues. I started with the clear view that salmon tagging was the right way to solve the major problem of the poacher and make a major contribution to conservation, for this is a conservation Bill.
We cannot distinguish between the stopping of poaching and the conservation measures because there is no doubt that very large numbers of fish are taken from rivers by poachers, which has a serious effect on conservation, not just because of the numbers but because of the methods used by poachers, which were so dramatically presented by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He rightly reminded us that the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) was very much out of date in the way in which he described poachers, who were family, furry individuals who fitted into every natural group and were merely taking the odd fish for the pot. That is not the person we are talking about, although I do not want to make the distinction that suggests that poaching in any cirumstances is acceptable. However, there is a type of poaching that is so unacceptable that anybody who has any interest in conservation must realise that it should be stopped. Connected with the poaching of salmon and the effect on conservation are violence and the use of methods that destroy rivers, which none of us could support.
Therefore, when I approached the matter, the idea of the tag attracted me considerably. Even had I been listening to every word on that day when the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) put forward with such enthusiasm the case of the Welsh water authority, I would still have had to say to him that I did not believe that I was right to think that tagging would solve the problem. Indeed, I take a stronger view than that. I believe that tagging has within it such inherent difficulties that it would make the problem worse because it would make people rely on the tags and, by relying on the tags, have a false sense of security. I want to express the argument carefully, and I want the House to be aware that I have taken seriously the arguments about tagging.
I have also sought to think about the arguments on an advisory committee. No such committee was envisaged when the Bill was first proposed. I responded to the pressure of my hon. Friends, not to have a simple way of getting off the hook, if we may use that phrase, but because I believe that an advisory committee is necessary for the Bill to have its full impact.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) that the argument about the statutory nature of the committee, based upon the fear that such a committee might be abolished by the whim of a future Minister, is unreal. It is not a political possibility for a Minister, having set up such a committee, to take such a short cut with it without a reason that could be seen by all.
There are also other examples of advisory committees, at least in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which are serious and important but which are not statutory. Their advice is taken seriously by the Ministry. The Farm Animal Welfare Council is an example. Therefore, the seriousness of the committee should not be determined by whether it is statutory. I prefer non-statutory committees because there is a flexibility about them that makes them worth while. This committee's seriousness must be judged by the House on the basis of what it does and of its membership.
In seeking to establish this committee we wanted to demonstrate that, above all, we are concerned with conservation. During the Committee stage I said that I did not believe that salmon should be treated as a food resource. I am pleased that that view has been taken up again this evening. Salmon are not primarily a food resource. If one looks at the figures, one sees that only 11 per cent. of the salmon eaten in this country are wild salmon. The rest are either farmed or imported salmon. Therefore, one cannot think of the 11 per cent. of British salmon that were caught last year as a food resource. One has to regard salmon as being very much more important to the leisure and tourist industries and to employment. Salmon as a food resource comes very low down the list.
9.30 pm
To ensure that that attitude prevails, we thought, first, that we ought to choose as chairman of the committee somebody who has a proven interest in conservation matters. Secondly, we thought that it was necessary that this person should clearly be seen to have had connections with the industry but that he should not be parti pris. That was difficult. I spent a great deal of time looking at very many names. Most of them turned out quite clearly to be on one side or another of the many arguments. Thirdly, we thought that it was necessary to have someone who would be able to deal scientifically with some of the fundamental issues relating to fisheries management that have been raised this evening. I am strongly of the view that one factor that has bedevilled a rational discussion of the issue has been the constant series of statistics that have been produced, all of which appear to contradict each other. There seems to be no way in which one can say that a particular list has to be accepted because it contains the most credible statistics.
Therefore, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the regius professor of natural history at the university of Aberdeen, Professor Dunnet, who has the kind of experience that we need, has said that he is willing to become the chairman of this committee. I think that the House will be very grateful to Professor Dunnet. He has


the additional advantage of being a Scotsman who lives in Scotland, who works in a Scottish university and who has a very close association with salmon research in Scotland. That. we feel, will give confidence to those who wish 80 per cent. of the salmon to be in Scottish waters.
As for the membership of the committee, I should have liked to present to the House this evening a list of those whom we had approached so that the House would know exactly who they were. However, I am unable to do so. It is important that the chairman of the committee should play some part in the discussions on the representation of a whole range of interests. The committee will advise those Ministers who have responsibility for fisheries. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that such a committee will be able to work better together if all its members feel that it is a representative body. I take the point that, on a per capita basis, it is not representative. However, we want a spread of representation right across the board. I have now completed my primary look at the range of people and organisations who feel that they ought to he properly represented. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) suggested, it is probable that a majority of those on the committee will represent Scottish interests because most salmon are caught in Scotland. It is vital that the committee should be seen as a committee of Great Britain and not as one that merely covers Scotland.
One of the criticisms in Committee was that we do not have a national salmon policy. If the advisory committee is to make such a policy a continuing one, it must represent the whole of Great Britain. For that reason, the secretariat will have a London focus, as the membership is bound to have a Scottish focus. The secretary will be a MAFF appointee. His deputy will come from DAFFS. There will also be an input from the Welsh. I have not forgotten that, and I hope to show why it is of great importance. I hope that it will be a committee whose structure, balance and spread will allow it to be taken extremely seriously.
I have already discussed with Professor Dunnet one or two issues which the committee will consider. The committee will meet before the opening of the new season, whatever happens. I hope that the Opposition will accept that, to all intents and purposes, that means the immediate setting up of the committee. The committee will deal early on with statistics. It will consider the collection of statistics and their reliability.
I shall draw to the committee's attention the points that have been made in the debate about the possibility of using tagging as a means of collecting statistics. I believe that there are real problems in that respect, and I do not underestimate them. The suggestion that tagging a fish makes the statistics drawn from that tagging more reliable presents some difficulty. I shall certainly draw to the committee's attention the discussion that has taken place. It will obviously be within its remit. I think that it would be absolutely natural for the committee to discuss that issue at an early date.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) will be pleased that I have already agreed that the question of predators is one that the committee should discuss closely. I hope that the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) will not be upset about that. However, there is indisputable evidence that, because there is no culling of seals, there are more of them, which suggests that there is considerable predation by seals on salmon. Even if that is not true, it is important to establish

the truth. Much of the heat that has been generated by differing interests in the salmon world is generated because no one can be sure about that fact, because we have been unable to provide the authoritative evidence we should like to have.
That is why I put the predators issue high on the list. Everywhere I went people said, "I do not know why you are bothering about the poachers until you do something about the seals," or, "I do not know why you are bothering about the north-east fisheries until you do something about the seals." Those people may be entirely wrong, but we must discover that. Therefore, we have asked the advisory committee to take up the matter quickly.

Mr. Wigley: The right hon. Gentleman would have heard the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) say earlier that circumstances were different regarding the salmon in his river—I think, the Tweed. The pattern in that river is quite different from that in Wales. Is that not indicative that there are factors other than the seals, which presumably would not discriminate between the Dyfi, the Tweed and the Beauly, which affect stocks? Perhaps we have extenuating -circumstances in Wales which need attention in that context. Can the Minister assure us that the Welsh Office will also be involved and that the focus will not just be on Scotland and MAFF in London?

Mr. Gummer: I give absolute assurance of that. Throughout the Bill we have been closely concerned with the Welsh Office. It has given its agreement to the terms of the advisory committee and there will be a clear Welsh input into the committee secretariat. There is no question about that. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not say that it is all down to seals. I do not know whether it is down to seals. The trouble with most of these debates is that people have grown increasingly cross with each other when it is the facts and figures that they are disputing. That is true of the north-east drift net fisheries. I shall return to Welsh tagging because I should like to deal with it directly in a wider context.
The advisory committee will not deal with the northeast drift net fisheries because we said that a specific report would be laid before both Houses of Parliament three years from the passing of the Bill on netting in the northeast of England and off the east coast of Scotland in the rivers that we mentioned in our debates. It would be entirely improper to suggest draconian measures, such as closing down the north-east drift net fishery off the coast of England, when 60 per cent. of the fish that are netted are netted in the rivers of Scotland. That is precisely the reason put forward by hon. Members on both sides of the House. That would be wholly unacceptable. It is also wholly unacceptable to deal with the public right of working fishermen in that way without any reference to the private rights of others in another part of the United Kingdom. That is not the business of fair Government legislation.
For that reason, we set out to achieve two objectives. First, we would restrict still further the north-east drift net fishermen. Many of my hon. Friends have asked how quickly that would be done and I can tell the House that all the measures that we promised to put in place will be in place before the opening of the new season. Secondly, the measure to prevent the use of licensed nets by endorsees in the absence of a licensee is being introduced by clause 35 of the Bill.
Both the Yorkshire and Northumbrian water authorities have made bylaws banning drift netting at night and standardising the weekend close time. We expect to be able to confirm them shortly. There are statutory limits to how quickly we can do that, but we shall confirm them shortly. This week I confirmed the Yorkshire water authority's order that will phase out seven drift net licences as the present licensees give up, and replace them with fixed net licences.
The two remaining measures are orders under section 28 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 to allow the use of fixed nets throughout the Yorkshire and Northumbrian water authority areas respectively. We do not anticipate any difficulties with the Yorkshire water authority area, but the Northumbrian water authority order has met considerable opposition from anglers. We must ensure that it meets the requirements without in any way diminishing the effect.
I can assure the House that all measures will be in place before the next season. In those circumstances it seems perfectly right that in three years' time we should study the effect of all types of netting on the supply of salmon into all kinds of rivers. Then we might again have some figures and facts on which to make decisions, instead of one man constantly saying that it affects 7 per cent. of salmon and another constantly saying that it affects every salmon, including those that are a long way from the north-east drift net fishery. Facts will help considerably.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) will accept that we should proceed in this way. If he is right and it is recommended that we take considerable, tough measures, the Government must be prepared to take them. I have always said that. If it is true that there is a major danger, we must put conservation first. We started our discussion in those terms and I should like to end now by saying, in exactly those terms, that conservation must come first. I give that undertaking. If, between now and the end of the three years, the Government have evidence which shows that we must take further steps, we shall have to do so. We have the powers to do so. We do not have to rely on new powers. We could take those steps, and I give my assurance that we would so do.
9.45 pm
Let me deal now with Welsh tagging. I intended, if it were possible, to tag, because I thought that tagging was right, but now I am convinced that it is not. The reason for that is that in every other country with the sort of problem that we have tagging does not seem to provide the answer. Our problem is that we would have to tag a large number of fish in a large number of places of disparate situation.
We cannot pray in aid the French. If we take every salmon that the French intend to tag, that is fewer than in one Scottish river. The French have fished all their salmon out. It is easy to have a tagging system if there are no salmon to tag. The idea that we should follow the French in conservation measures is difficult to accept, but to follow them in conserving something that they have already fished out is not sensible.
I have news fresh from Biarritz where they have been considering this issue carefully. There, they have presented a policy which, in almost every particular, the Bill is

already applying. In other words, what we are trying to do and what we shall be doing with the powers provided by the Bill will, I hope, be able to provide exactly the sort of national salmon policy which the discussions in Biarritz lead us to want.
I know that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is a great devotee of the French and a great francophile, but what the French intend to do will not wash. They are not, at the moment, going to tag fish caught at sea, farmed salmon or imported salmon. They think that they might in the future. But consider the danger of tagging only some salmon. That gives the poacher the most wonderful thing that he has ever had. All he has to do is to get hold of a few tags and he legitimises his own illegitimate catch.
Let me explain why I think that the Welsh water authority is mistaken in its proposal. I wish it were not so, but if it is wrong to tag nationally because it cannot be done without creating opportunities for fraud so much greater than any advantage one might have, it becomes even more wrong to tag regionally or even in the Principality alone. Any salmon poacher who poaches salmon on rivers, particularly those which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking suggested, are close to the border of the Principality, has only to skip over the border and there is no need for tagging to take place at all. It does not make sense as an anti-poaching device. Indeed, it does something much more dangerous. Once again, it enables people to legitimise that which they would find it difficult to get away with without a tagging scheme.
That does not mean that I have closed my mind to tagging for ever. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney must accept that if, after going over a matter again and again to try to find a way of accepting it, one still cannot be convinced, it is not unreasonable to share one's pretty good certainties with the House.

Mr. Rowlands: I do not find it very convincing that the Minister has not closed his mind to the issue of tagging. Therefore, let me put a different proposition to him. If the Welsh water authority, a responsible authority, in conjunction with the Welsh Salmon and Trout Association, brings a detailed project for the conservation of salmon in Wales to the advisory committee, when will the committee be able to receive an urgent submission of that kind and advise on it which, if the Committee supported it, might then reopen the Minister's mind? Will he give me an assurance that such a detailed submission will be within the remit of the advisory committee?

Mr. Gummer: I have already given the assurance that, as soon as possible after the Bill's enactment, the advisory committee will seek to assess how effective its anti-poaching measures are. We shall not necessarily wait for the water authority, but may tell it that if, in the circumstances then obtaining, it wishes its proposals for salmon tagging to be considered, the advisory committee will look at the matter. I have already given that undertaking, and I believe it to be right. I understand that the water authority might say that its tagging scheme can run with, and improve, the dealer licensing scheme, but I hope that we can agree that when the committee has considered whether the dealer licensing scheme is operating satisfactorily, it can look at the Welsh water authority's tagging proposals if it then has any. I hope that the Welsh water authority will take to heart the point that


it could considerably help its case if it considered the number of water bailiffs and others available. No one can say that it is sensible to have a partial salmon scheme.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. 'Finn) about the cyclical pattern. One must be careful with the salmon figures, but that is why the committee has the matter as one of its first remits. I was unhappy about some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), but he too is not convinced about tagging and that is only right. I hope that the proposals that we have put forward for the committee, the seriousness with which we view the matter, and the fact that it will be as representative as possible will make him happy to support us.
The experience of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) as a student has given him a miserable view of anyone in the netting industry. I wish that he was not as biased against Scottish netsmen as some Scots appear to be against English netsmen. We should not be biased against rodsmen or netsmen. The aim is to try to conserve salmon. The hon. Gentleman's constant attacks on my noble Friends are a disgrace. They have a long history of supporting conservation measures and their probity is unquestioned, other than by the hon. Gentleman. If we hear again about how he was sent out in a boat as a student, we shall have to ask why he did not set up a union instead of complaining that there was not one for him to join.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am not complaining that the Minister has said a great deal about Scotland— that is fair enough in the context of his reply—but I invite him to clarify one important point concerning who the advisory committee will report to. The Minister said that the sponsoring Minister for the advisory committee on salmon conservation will be his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is well known, and the Minister has acknowledged, that 70 per cent. of the salmon in British rivers are found in Scotland. A significant number of the recommendations made by the advisory committee would have to be implemented, or at least considered, by the Secretary of State for Scotland. Will the Minister say a little more about the relationship between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in relation to that important advisory committee?

Mr. Gummer: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman has not followed what I have been saying, but I thought that I made it clear throughout our debates in Committee that the committee is an advisory committee to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. I have tried to show how we have attempted to meet the interests of all those concerned.
It is not acceptable for the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey) to suggest that tagging fish is the same as tagging sheep. The two methods would not be the same. The problems are quite different, and it does not help to try to draw comparisons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking rightly said that we would come later to dealer licensing. I believe that that is the way to counter the argument on tagging. Indeed, that is why I have agreed to extend dealer licensing. It should cover the whole of the United Kingdom and not just Scotland. However, I assure my

hon. Friend that I shall seek the advice of the committee on a whole range of matters, which will not exclude the dangers that he mentioned.
We have presented the House with a mix of a dealer licensing system, an advisory committee and a chairman who will clearly have the support of all salmon interests, and we have thus changed the way in which the salmon industry is viewed. I hope that the House will accept that the new clauses are unnecessary and that a fair wind should be given to our major proposals.

Mr. Randall: I shall be brief. The Minister has expressed doubts and uncertainty about tagging, but in Wales there is unanimity that it is essential to an effective system of conservation. There are successful tagging schemes in other parts of the world, such as Canada, and I believe that we too should gain some practical experience.
The new clauses would allow us to take powers, and we could then see what the advisory committee has to say about the technicalities of tagging. That is the best way forward, and it will ensure that we have a good system of conservation.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 128.

Division No 294]
[10 pm


AYES


Berth, A. J.
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bruce, Malcolm
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Canavan, Dennis
Maclennan, Robert


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McWilliam, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Foster, Derek
Randall, Stuart


George, Bruce
Ross, Stephen (Isle or Wight)


Godman, Dr Norman
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Home Robertson, John
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Howells, Geraint
Wigley, Dafydd


Johnston, Sir Russell
Wilson, Gordon


Kennedy, Charles



Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Dr. Roger Thomas and


Livsey, Richard
Mrs. Llin Golding.


NOES


Amess, David
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon


Ashby, David
Cope, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Batiste, Spencer
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, John
Dykes, Hugh


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bottomley, Peter
Fallon, Michael


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Favell, Anthony


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bright, Graham
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brinton, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tattoo)


Butterfill, John
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Harris, David


Cash, William
Hayes, J.


Chope, Christopher
Heddle, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)






Hunter, Andrew
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Jessel, Toby
Monro, Sir Hector


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Moynihan, Hon C.


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Neale, Gerrard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Nicholls, Patrick


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Onslow, Cranley


Lang, Ian
Osborn, Sir John


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Pollock, Alexander


Lester, Jim
Portillo, Michael


Lightbown, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Powley, John


Lord, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Raffan, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Maclean, David John
Roe, Mrs Marion


Major, John
Rowe, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Maude, Hon Francis
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Sayeed, Jonathan


Merchant, Piers
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Speed, Keith
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Speller, Tony
Waddington, David


Spencer, Derek
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Watts, John


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wolfson, Mark


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Yeo, Tim


Thome, Neil (Ilford S)



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Salmon Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.— [Mr.Maude.]

Salmon Bill [Lords]

Again considered.

New Clause 12

`ACCOUNTABLE DISTRICT SALMON FISHERY BOARDS

`(1) The Secretary of State by order shall have power to establish District Salmon Fishery Boards for such districts containing a fishery as he shall designate and shall provide that a majority of members of each board shall be nominated by the relevant local authority or authorities in such numbers as he shall deem appropriate, the remaining members of each board being elected in terms of Schedule 2 to this Act.
(2) A district salmon fishery board shall have the powers and duties conferred—

(a) on them under this Act; and
(b) by any other enactment on a district board within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1862 to 1868;

and references in any enactment, other than in this Act, to a district board within the meaning of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1862 to 1868 shall be construed as references to a district salmon fishery board.'. — [Mr. Donald Stewart.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 12, in page 12, line 6, leave out clause 13.
No. 13, in clause 14, page 13, line 37, at end insert—
(1A) The press and the public shall be admitted to all meetings of district salmon fishery boards.'.

Mr. Stewart: Amendment No. 12 is consequential and I am happy to support amendment No. 13.
In his reply to the previous debate, the Minister said that conservation should come first. The Bill has little to do with conservation. When it was first published the Salmon Conservancy said:
The balance of influence on the boards still remains in the hands of the major proprietorial interests whose eligibility for election to the board is determined by the value of the fishery. Co-opted anglers and tenant netsmen have restricted power only.
It is clear that under no circumstances can co-opted members outnumber proprietors.
The purpose of the amendment is to change that position. We want to make a start, albeit minimal, on community involvement in salmon fisheries.

Mr. Home Robertson: We made our position on the composition of the district boards very clear in Committee. As the Minister will recall, the Opposition voted against schedule 2, which provides for a 20th century re-enactment of a medieval system of proprietorial authority, with only a token presence representing other interests and without any voting power or authority.
All relevant interests, including the public, should be represented on the boards. However, having flogged the issue to death in Committee and voted against the Bill on a reasoned amendment on Second Reading, I could not think of much to add on Report. However, the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has come to the issue as fresh as a daisy and tabled an uncharacteristically reasonable new clause to provide for proper representation and accountability for the boards. We welcome his support for the case that we have been putting to the

Government for a number of months. We endorse the objectives of his new clause. As he may have noticed, I have added my name to its list of sponsors.
Amendment No. 13 stands in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is apparently unavoidably absent tonight. He will have noticed that I have added my name to his amendment. I wholeheartedly agree that district boards, which in effect will be statutory public authorities, should conduct their proceedings in public and that the press should be free to report on their deliberations.
Had the hon. Gentleman been in his place in Committee to move his amendment, I would have been happy to support him. As he is again not with us tonight, I am happy to say in his absence that, in principle, the Opposition are prepared to support his amendment.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to follow the example of brevity set by the two previous speakers. I wish to support new clause 12 because the considerable argument about the right balance on the boards between riparian owners, netsmen and anglers has convinced me that the proposed structure that locks co-opted members into a minority position should not be accepted.
As the Government have argued that they are trying to increase democracy through this measure, it is inappropriate that the rather dubious democratic structure that they propose will mean that that majority using the facility will be in a minority position.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Kennedy: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman knows all about minority positions, but I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way.
The co-opting of anglers and tenant netsmen is something of a token gesture towards increasing representation. Efforts to introduce election rather than the system of co-opting have failed. However, there is no doubt that the balance of influence still remains in the hands of the major proprietorial interests whose eligibility for election to the board, as the right hon Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) said, is determined by the value of the fishery. Therefore, there is restricted power only for the co-opted anglers and the tenant netsmen.
Other interested parties, such as local businesses, hoteliers and representatives of local tourist boards., do not seem to be having the major input that we would wish, especially given the importance of the industry to the Highlands and Islands.
The Federation of Highland Angling Clubs and Association has been extremely diligent in keeping its local Members of Parliament and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) who served on the Commitee, well informed of its views. I am extremely grateful on my behalf and on behalf' of my hon. Friends from the Highlands and Islands to Mr. Bill Brown of Strathpeffer, who, as well as serving with the federation, is secretary of the Scottish Anglers National Association. He has been extremely active on behalf of that association. The Federation of Highland Angling Clubs and Association put it extremely well when it said:
Our criticism must be in the clause which says that anglers should be 'co-opted".
It points out that in opposing co-option it has made several suggestions, one of which would be that the


Secretary of State should appoint co-opted angler representation. The association looked to the system which operates with the purification boards as a comparison which the Government could have looked at. Concern has been expressed by groups such as the Highland regional council and, I am sure I am right in saying, by the Western Isles council and other tiers of local authority in the Highlands and Islands.
In taking this step forward to establish district salmon fishery boards under the guise of democracy, the Government have given insufficient input to local angling interests and local fishing interests as a whole. Essentially, within the new structure, they have consolidated the power and hold, which is not democratic, of those who have the biggest cash control and personal stake and interest in the industry. It is disappointing that the Government have not gone further.
Given that there is such a great deal of interest in the decisions which the boards will be taking, in the activities they will be carrying out and the functions they will perform, it is only right, especially given the long drawn out arguments, that if the Government are going down the road of democracy, which is what they argue, that meetings of the board should be open to the press and the public. In that respect I endorse amendment No. 13 which follows on from new clause 12 and stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I do not see that there is any convincing argument against openness of Government decision-making in this respect. It is sad that we do not have more openness in general in the composition of the fishery boards that are to be established, and, through that, more genuine democracy of the type that the Government have claimed.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I had no intention of making a contribution to the debate, but as the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) would not give way I shall make one point. It is an extraordinary argument that rests on democracy and suggests that Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all should be involved in the deliberations of the boards. The hon. Gentleman is not arguing that the National Farmers Union, British Wool Marketing Board, the Red Deer Commission or other such organisations should have Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. No doubt he would argue that, in the case of the NFU, it is appropriate that decisions about farming and representations about farming should be made by those involved in it and who know something about it. There is ample provision in the legislation for outside interests to be represented.
The hon. Gentleman does not come to the House and tell us that more people should he involved in decisions about forestry or any other activity. It strikes me as an odd notion of democracy that says that everyone should be involved in the business of deciding how best to run or manage our rivers. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not give the considerable credit that is due to the many people who, as riparian owners, put in time, money and effort to make sure that our salmon interests are preserved and enhanced to the greater benefit of the community and to the considerable benefit of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman is simply perpetuating the old class war and playing to the gallery rather than looking at the interests of salmon fishing in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman made no attempt to say how all these various democratic groups would make their financial contribution. Presumably, once again he is looking to the ratepayer and the taxpayer to foot the bill.

Mr. John MacKay: The new clause does what the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) wishes it to do. It changes the composition of the boards. We intend to retain the influence of owners on the boards because of their ownership of fisheries and their direct contribution to the boards' finances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is right. The interest of proprietors has been essential. Not all of them come from Burkes Peerage or the House of Lords. Most of those who own parts of rivers or rivers in my constituency are ordinary farmers or are in the hotel business or the like. They are not people like the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), and their holding in the land is much more modest in size and value than that of the hon. Gentleman.
Such people have done a splendid job, and it is because of their efforts over the years, both collectively and separately, that the salmon stock in Scotland is not at the level that some of the pessimists would have us believe they would be. There is a great deal to be said for the principle that he who pays the piper calls the tune. We have recognised that other interests should be represented on the newly constituted district salmon fishery boards, which is why we have introduced representatives of the anglers and the tenant netsmen, who will have voting representation and play a full part in the operation of the boards.
It is not clear whether the local authority nominees which new clause 12 would require would have voting rights, but I presume that to be the intention. That would be manifestly unjust. One might see the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) that those in the hotel and tourist trades, who have a direct interest in the fishery trade and looking after it and making sure that it prospers, should be involved but many of the proprietors and anglers on the board will have that interest.
Giving local government a majority on the board would change the balance of power entirely, from those who own the fisheries, pay the fishery assessment and are interested in the fishery assessment, to others who, however worthy they may be, do not. By their weight of numbers they would be able to cause the board to incur expenditure, perhaps great expenditure, without contributing a single penny directly or through the authority that they represent. The wise course is to stay with clause 13 and not support new clause 12.
I have given amendment No. 13 careful thought. I have some sympathy with it. I remember when I joined Oban town council many years ago fighting a battle to open council meetings to the public. However, I have concluded in this case—and I hope the House will agree—that it would not be appropriate to require the boards to open their meetings in the way that the amendment seeks. The co-option of anglers' representatives to the board can be expected to ensure a wider scrutiny of a board's activities, for example, through the reporting back procedure which the anglers will have for those whom they represent. There is nothing in the legislation to prevent the boards from inviting the public or the press to attend meetings. Perhaps newly constituted boards will bear that in mind.
It has been argued that as the boards receive no subsidies from public funds and are therefore not, as local authorities are, accountable to the public in a financial sense the reasoning that justifies opening local authority meetings to the public does not apply to the boards. Some hon. Members must know that many smaller boards hold meetings in the offices of their clerks. That may be the boardroom of the firm of lawyers who act as clerks.
I believe that it would be unreasonable to expect a board to incur avoidable expenditure by hiring halls just in case members of the press or public wish to watch the board's deliberations. That is not a sensible thing to ask the boards to do. That is not sensible expenditure or a sensible use of money and I hope that the new clause will be withdrawn.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The Minister has a remarkably aristocratic view of the Highlands. The idea that the proprietors of the salmon rivers are the only people endowed with an understanding of what is in the public interest is preposterous. The suggestion that ordinary chaps are thoe who own stretches of salmon rivers bears no relation to the Highlands reality. I wish that the Minister would not try to pull the wool over our eyes. He will certainly not be pulling the wool over the eyes of his constituents, never mind the eyes of the constituents of my hon. Friends who represent the majority of the Highlands and Islands constituencies. If he continues to act in that way, he had better look to his laurels.
Local authorities are elected by the public in the areas and are well placed to represent the interests of those concerned that the fisheries should be managed to the benefit of the community. The new clause is a modest proposal. The Minister's lack of sympathy for the objectives of the clause will be noted throughout the Highlands. He has done nothing to ensure that there will be representatives of the tourist industry on the boards. He has also done nothing to ensure that there will be representatives of local anglers' associations or representatives of those who may have a specialist knowledge of the fishing industry but who have no commercial interest themselves. The constitution of the board is to be decided entirely by the disposition of those who happen, frequently by inheritance, to have acquired rights of ownership over rivers — rights often exercised exclusively, not for the benefit of the public.
The Minister is living in the last century, and it is about time that he woke up. It is about time that he recognised that not for much longer are the Scottish public prepared to see the God-given inheritance of these fishing waters disposed of as the private property of a handful of people whose forebears acquired them through no virtue other than their acquisitiveness.
If the Minister continues to dig in his heels and set his face against popular involvement in decisions about the preservation and improvement of fisheries in Scotland, he will reap much more drastic remedies.

Sir Hector Monro: I had not intended to get involved in the debate until the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) got to his feet and behaved in an astonishingly ignorant way. He did not appear in the debate until 10.25 tonight and has taken no obvious interest in the Bill since it came to the House many months

ago. The hon. Gentleman displayed his total ignorance of the management of the rivers in Scotland by quoting his own local boards and suggesting that that was the case throughout Scotland.
Does the hon. Gentleman know that the chairman of one of the best river boards in the south of Scotland, on the Annan, happens to be a school teacher and a local councillor? Is he aware that there are anglers on the local board? Is he aware that people interested in tourism are on the board? Just because the hon. Gentleman apparently has a particular dislike of the owner of a river in Thurso, he reckons that it is the same throughout Scotland. He ought to apologise for making disgraceful statements that are totally without knowledge of boards throughout Scotland. They do an exceptionally good job, manage the rivers well, let angling associations have adequate water and provide adequate water themselves.
As I told the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) hours ago, he could fish on some of the best salmon rivers in Scotland for £5 a day — on privately-owned water as well as on association water.
The House should take no interest in the criticisms of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland who has turned up at this late hour.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Sir Hector Monro: No.

Mr. Donald Stewart: I introduced the new clause much more briefly than I would normally have done, and I am glad that other hon. Members have raised points that I wished to make. I am sorry that the Minister has turned down the new clause in such a cavalier fashion.
The Minister repeated some of the myths connected with the Bill. The myth that the working class in Scotland have beats on salmon rivers as a diversion from the darts club was effectively demolished by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). The other myth is that until recently these owners accepted that a man could take "one for the pot" and that nothing would he done about it. I cannot recall such a situation. They still believe that anyone poaching a salmon should be sent to Botany bay. They seem to regard this as more heinous than some of the worst crimes on the statute book.
The Minister also referred to what the owners had done for.salmon stocks. I do not agree with salmon fishing off the north-east coast of England, but the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a valid point when he said that we should stop the netting of salmon in Scotland before we do so elsewhere.
I know a number of these owners who are netting their rivers. That is where conservation should begin. They are shipping the fish out to Billingsgate for a fast buck. If that were stopped there would be many more salmon going up the rivers. What the poachers are taking is a drop in the ocean, and I am sorry that the Minister did not accept the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 3

GENERAL REGULATION OF SALMON FISHERIES

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line, at beginning insert
'When he considers it necessary to do so in order to conserve salmon stocks more effectively.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 2, after 'appropriate' insert:
'and after taking into account the interests of any persons whose livelihood would be affected'.

Mr. Beith: These two amendments relate to provisions in the Bill by which the Secretary of State can make severe restrictions on the manner in which fisheries are managed. These restrictions may be contemplated for the best of reasons but they could have the effect of depriving certain categories of fishermen of their livelihoods.
If the Minister were to set a mesh size which was such that few salmon could be caught it would effectively destroy a particular fishery. If the Minister forbade a whole category of implements he would rule out an entire fishery. There are a series of provisions in the Bill which would enable the Minister to remove the livelihoods of groups of fishermen.
In Committee I sought to argue that a Minister should not have such powers without adequate parliamentary opportunity to consider the matter. I argued that the affirmative order procedure was the only reasonable way of doing so. At the moment the Minister can bring in an order prohibiting a category of fishing and the only thing that hon. Members could do would be to pray against the order. They would seek a debate — probably without success—on the Floor of the House. With luck it could be debated in Committee, but hon. Members would have no guarantee of a meaningful debate on the order. They would have no opportunity effectively to represent their constituents.
My argument for the affirmative order did not prevail as Conservative Members felt that this—in my opinion inadequate—procedure was all that was needed in such circumstances. I disagree.
Tonight, I have taken an alternative approach. I believe that the Minister should satisfy two conditions before he may embark on some of the actions that are open to him in the Bill. If the Minister seeks to exercise the powers in clause 3(2) he should do so only when he considers it necessary to conserve salmon stocks more effectively. I am sure that that is the Minister's intention, but it is just possible that a Minister may be persuaded, by argument, that one category of fishing should be abolished to improve the opportunities for another category. That is not a reasonable basis for exercising the powers available. The basis should be conservation.
If the Minister should decide that a specific net is bad, such a decision should be based on the conservation needs and with due consideration for the effect of such a ban on the livelihood of fishermen. Such considerations have not always featured in Government departmental practice. I have argued about this with the Minister on previous occasions in respect of other matters, including the ban on the carriage of monofilament nets. However hard the Minister tried, he left some fishermen with the feeling that they had not been properly consulted.
There should be a clear obligation to take into account the interests of those whose livelihoods may be affected by Government decisions. I hope that the Minister will say that that is his intention and that I have given an accurate interpretation of it. That would set a future pattern and give guidance to departmental officials. I would prefer such considerations to be contained in the Bill. The Minister must remember that conservation is the objective but that people's livelihoods are also involved.

Mr. Home Robertson: Amendment No. 1 shows that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is even more suspicious than I am about the Government's motives. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations on close times, mesh sizes and so on only
When he considers it necessary to do so in order to conserve salmon stocks.
I confess that it had not occurred to me that any Minister, even this Minister, would introduce such regulations just for the hell of it or simply out of spite. However, I suppose that there is a case for guarding against such eventualities. Nevertheless, after the Minister's disgraceful response to the earlier debate I feel that he cannot be trusted to exercise his discretion fairly over this kind of issue. Therefore, I support in principle amendment No. 1.
Amendment No. 2 would ensure that before regulations are made account is taken of the interests of those whose livelihoods would be affected. I think that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed is right. It became very clear in Committee that there are people who would not hesitate to take action to close down legitimate netting operations, regardless of the interests of those who had worked the fisheries for generations, according to traditional and properly regulated practices. The House should recognise the importance of those jobs, however few, seasonal, or part-time they may be, in small and remote communities. The economy of a rural area can be very fragile, and the loss of even part-time jobs can have far-reaching effects.
Right hon. and hon. Members recognise that it may be necessary further to restrict the netting effort, but any such measures must take proper account of those whose livelihoods will be affected. Therefore, I support in principle both of the amendments.

Mr. John MacKay: I admit that the inclusion of the words contained in the first amendment is superficially attractive, but their inclusion would involve danger. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) would add a restriction. The Secretary of State may want to use his powers for purposes that are not strictly conservationist. They may, however, have an identifiable effect on, for example, the better management of a fishery. I do not deny that the existing regulations and any that will be made under clause 3(2) are essentially conservationist, in the widest sense of the word. However, to seek to qualify the Secretary of State's power by the amendment would be unsatisfactory, in view of the kind of questions and doubts that might be raised about the Secretary of State's power to act in the interests of the good management of salmon stocks. That is part and parcel of the conservation problems that the House has discussed.
As for the second amendment, in Committee I was far from convinced that anything other than a generalised requirement for the Secretary of State to consult such persons as he considers appropriate was necessary. I am still of the same mind. I hope that it can be taken as read that any Secretary of State, of whatever political persuasion, will have regard to salmon conservation, and also to other relevant matters, when he considers such questions and that he will consult all those who have an interest in and whose livelihood depends upon the fishery concerned. Obviously he will have to consider the views of


interested parties, whether or not their livelihoods are directly affected, and he will have to weigh all these factors before deciding whether to make a regulation.
I see no advantage in picking out one particular group. I had hoped that in Committee I had given the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed sufficient assurances to allay his fears. I have tried again to give those assurances. I hope that I have said enough to convince the hon. Member that his fears are groundless and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 6

ANNUAL CLOSE TIME

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 4, leave out 'only'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 7, line 8, at end insert—
'(c) after consulting such persons as he considers appropriate.'.
No. 6, in clause 7, page 8, line 4 leave out 'only'.
No. 7, in clause 7, page 8, line 8 at end insert—
'(c) after consulting such persons as he considers appropriate.'.

Sir Hector Monro: Clause 6 deals with the annual close time. I am not arguing the case for that one way or the other. However, when we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister opened the door to a system that can be adjusted.
According to the Bill, the Secretary of State can make a close time order only if he has been asked to do so by the district salmon board or, if there is no such board, by two proprietors of salmon fisheries in the district. It is conceivable that the proprietors of both upper and lower stretches could act in their own interests in declining to ask the Secretary of State to make an order, even though in the interests of conservation, and indeed in the interests of common sense, it is important to make such an order. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who bailed out as quickly as he arrived, and does not seem to like boards and proprietors, would have been pleased if the Secretary of State could step in where it is obviously essential that he should do so.
10.45 pm
In this simple case, all we are asking in amendment No. 5—
after consulting such persons as he considers appropriate"—
is for the Minister to step in and deal with the matter if malpractice, inefficiency or incompetence is taking place. It is conceivable that two proprietors might be in cahoots and they may not wish to have an order made that might be to their disadvantage but to the advantage of the river. I quite accept that the board would be in a position to advise the Minister on its interests. However, I am referring to a case where there is no board and where proprietors might not be acting in the interests of the river.
Throughout the Bill, the Minister, off his own bat, or on the advice of the board, takes powers to do a whole host of operations, yet he is not prepared to do so in the case of close time or in terms of estuarial limits. I have considered what he said in Committee, and I wonder what his objection is to taking steps when it is essential to do so.

If he says that the amendment is defective or that something is wrong with its drafting, I shall be all the more disappointed, because he has known, since the Committee stage, that I would put down an amendment. He might well have put one down himself. I shall listen with interest to his argument as to why he will not accept what seems to be a simple, logical and worthwhile amendment which everybody with whom I have discussed it in the fishing world thinks is admirable.

Mr. John MacKay: My hon. Friend's amendments have again raised the question of annual close times and the way in which the Bill seeks to change them. In Committee, I undertook to reflect on the points made by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, and to bring forward an amendment if I were more convinced about the case on reflection than I was at the time. I am afraid that the fact that I have not brought forward an amendment shows that I have not been persuaded by the arguments.
I do not think that any hon. Member would seriously wish that annual close times, which last for 168 days and have different dates for different districts, should be solely within the discretion of the Secretary of State. Annual close times have been fixed in the past according to local considerations, such as the timings of the runs of fish, and so on. Those changes in the dates that have taken place over the years have been made at the initiative of district boards which have had to petition the Secretary of State. I am not aware that any great difficulty has been caused by that procedure, other than in areas where there are no boards. We have sought to deal with this in future by enabling two proprietors in a district for which there is no board to apply for the sorts of changes for which the Bill provides—that is, for the extension to the period of the close time as well as changes to dates.
My hon. Friends would, in effect, wish me to provide that a board's decision not to apply for a change in the annual close time be subject to appeal to the Secretary of State. Presumably such an appeal would be made on behalf of local interests, but I wonder whether that would necessarily be the case. I doubt very much whether what should be a local issue would not be in danger of becoming a cause celebre of national proportions. The plain truth of the position is that, were we to go down the road that my hon. Friend invites me to go down, there would be little point in the power being given to the district hoards and proprietors in the first place. We might as well treat alteration to the annual close time as a national issue from the outset.
I understand that my hon. Friend's concern is about conservation and controlling the balance of exploitation between nets and rods. We should look, not to the extension of annual close time, but to the extension of weekly close time. In Committee, I undertook on many occasions—I am happy to do so again—to consult on weekly close time with particular reference to whether Saturday morning should continue to be part and parcel of the open time for net fishing as soon as the Bill was enacted.
My hon. Friend's amendments to clause 7 fall within the same general principles—the question of estuarial limits and so on. These matters should be left to local initiative and responsibility. Local boards should bring them to the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State


were to be given power to act without an application, we might as well give him all the powers from the beginning, rather than have the ball played first by the district boards.
I know that my hon. Friend will be disappointed, and that I have not managed to convince him in the past few weeks. However, on balance the Bill is correct. The initiative should come from the boards and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will have the power, after he has gone through the various consultation procedures, to act to ensure that all the local interests involved have their say.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister would say that, would he not? I was a little suspicious of the motives of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) in tabling the amendment. I wondered whether he sought to get round the rudimentary representation of the netting interests on the boards.
I welcome one factor in his speech. He recognised what we in the Opposition have been saying all along which is that in some circumstances the boards may note the most appropriate bodies as they are at present constituted to deal with the wider interests involved in Scotland's salmon rivers and lochs and to do the job that the House wants them to do. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's apparent conversion on that point and I am glad that he and some Opposition Members are raising questions about the efficacy of the boards.

Sir Hector Monro: I am disappointed in the Minister's reply. I am not arguing about the position of the district boards. They exist to advise the Secretary of State and to require him to make an order. I am concerned with the estuarial limits and the close time where there is no board and the proprietors may not be acting in the best interests of the river and of others who may wish to fish on it. I cannot see why in those special circumstances the Minister should not be prepared to take the decision into his hands, especially since he has already taken enormous powers under the Bill, many of which I welcome, particularly those relative to weekly close times. I cannot understand why he is prepared to bury his head in the sand or the water or whatever when a river may be being ruined by two proprietors who have got together and refused to take action. This is a simple, worthwhile amendment and I am most disappointed by his attitude.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I know well the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and I have heard what the Minister has had to say. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to know that his reply is disappointing. A major criticism of the Bill is that it does not grasp the nettle of estuarial interests. It is feeble in that respect and I hope that we shall return to battle this out through the committee that is to be set up and persuade other Ministers on another occasion of the wisdom of my hon. Friend's remarks.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9

APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS AND ANNUAL CLOSE TIME ORDERS TO THE RIVER TWEED

Amendments made: No. 8, in page 9, line 15, after '6', insert
'and section (Use of baits and lures)'.
No. 9, in page 9, line 34, at end add—
`; and
(d) section (Use of baits and lures) of this Act includes power to amend section 6 of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859.'.
No. 10, in page 9, line 36, after '6', insert `,10'.— [Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 10

QUALIFIED PROPRIETORS AND UPPER AND LOWER PROPRIETORS

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 10, line 30 leave out subsection (6) and insert—
'(6) Subject to subsection (5) above, a qualified proprietor in a salmon fishery district shall not be eligible for election, co-option or appointment to the district salmon fishery board for that district in respect of more than one salmon fishery.'.
The amendment clarifies the intention of subsection (6). We want to ensure—and have done so in subsection (5)—that a qualified proprietor who is both an upper and lower proprietor in a district may act in either or both capacities. Nevertheless, where he owns more than one upper fishery, or more than one lower fishery, he should not be eligible to be elected or co-opted to the board for that district more than once in the same capacity—that is, as an upper or lower proprietor — and this minor amendment makes the position clear.

Mr. Home Robertson: We had some interesting debates in Committee on the subject of one man, one vote—or, as in this case, one proprietor, one vote — and we established that mulitple proprietors would apparently have multiple votes. Indeed, I rashly referred to them in Committee as "block votes". If we were to extend that principle to the other place, I suppose we should find that the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry would have two votes—one for Buccleuch and one for Queensberry —and that in this House the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr. MacKay), the Minister, would have one for each. He should be so lucky.
I gather that the amendment will mean that a multiple proprietor with both upper and lower fishing rights will not be eligible for election, co-option or appointment to a district in respect of more than one fishery, and I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

FINANCIAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF DISTRICT SALMON FISHERY BOARDS

Sir Hector Monro: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 14, line 4, at end insert
'provided that such assessment shall not be assessed on any lower proprietor who has abandoned his fishery for a period of twelve months prior to the date of assessment.'.
I feel equally strongly about this amendment and I hope I shall have better luck with it. We debated this issue in


Committee, and while the Minister was not particularly encouraging, at least he did not shut the door in my face. Since then I have been in correspondence with him and I trust that he has given the matter further thought.
In debating the Bill tonight hon. Members have expressed concern about the need for conservation —how we want to get rid of nets, but without affecting existing fishermen. The amendment deals with proprietors and others who are buying out nets and abandoning them, the result being that the areas are not fished at all, and that must he in the best interests of conservation. The Minister seems to think, however, that an amendment to remove the assessment is inappropriate, and that the particular amendment is not best drafted. I have been waiting to be advised of a better word than "abandoned", and if that advice is forthcoming I shall be willing to amend the amendment, if there is time to do so. The dictionary tells me, however, that "abandoned" is the best word.
11 pm
We have a new organisation in Morayshire, called the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. Some fishing enthusiasts have come together to form a charitable trust to purchase netting interests throughout the Moray Firth. That is what it has been doing, to allow more fish to enter the river so as to build up stocks. Surely that is highly commendable. The Minister should be saying, "Thank goodness that some people are doing what we all want to be done." No one is any the worse off, because the fish are coming up the river to add to the stocks to the benefit of the entire river.
When the assessment issue arises, however, the Minister says that he will not accept the amendment. When proprietors are doing good work, surely we should assist them by reducing what they have to pay in the form of assessment. I cannot understand why the Government are being so abstruse and objecting to the amendment. The principle is right, irrespective of the drafting, and I cannot understand why I am not receiving a green light from the Treasury Front Bench. I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Home Robertson: I understand what the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) is saying about the principle that there should be no assessment of what he terms "abandoned lower fisheries", but the thread of his argument is that there is a need to do away with some or all of these fisheries, which are the netting stations on our estuaries. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that proprietors who achieve that end are doing a good thing. I have no doubt that if we were to read the reports of the Highland clearances we would find that some said that it was a good thing to do away with crofters. That may be an extreme parallel, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about closing down traditional and properly regulated industries which provide part-time employment for a few people. We should be cautious before we take that path. Apart from direct employment, consideration must be given to the other benefits to local economies.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) knows the Tweed almost as well as I do, and I think that he would agree that the area would lose much of its attraction if it were no longer to be the scene of the catching of salmon by net in the traditional way—in other words, in a properly regulated fashion underneath the bridges of the Tweed. If the hon. Member for Dumfries is not careful, he will find that there is that loss.
I accept along with everyone else that there will need to be a restriction placed on the netting effort, but I want the restriction to be properly regulated in a way that is seen to be fair. I hope that the advisory committee under Professor Dunnet will be able to make sensible recommendations that will bear on all sectors of salmon fisheries. I am going rather wide, but I have been goaded by the hon. Member for Dumfries.

Mr. John MacKay: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is being a little unkind to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) because he is talking about people giving up their netting right voluntarily.
I have some sympathy with the argument. Since the Committee stage we have obtained the views of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards. The association is concerned about the effect that the amendment could have on matters to which I referred in Committee — for instance, the possibility of proprietors of netting stations opting in and out of the fishery assessment and the difficulties for boards in deciding whether a fishery had in fact been abandoned.
The association has concluded that an amendment such as is proposed is not necessary and that the powers vested in boards under clauses 14 and 15 are sufficient. The association's views have reinforced my own doubts about attempting to regulate in this complicated area.
Clauses 14 and 15 were deliberately drafted to give hoards wide general and financial powers and my view is that we should rely on these. The association envisages that these powers would, for example, enable it to deal with the question of the fishery assessment on abandoned, or perhaps suspended, fisheries by administrative means. A board could levy the assessment in the normal way but make an annual payment to the proprietor, equal to the amount of assessment levied in the relevant year—always assuming, of course, that the finances of the board permitted that or that it had a chance, perhaps for a transitional period, to allow that to be done.
My main concern is that my hon. Friend's amendment for automatic exemption from the fishery assessment would produce immediate loss of revenue without the scope and time for arrangements which might he possible under agreements made between a hoard and a proprietor. Any loss of revenue would result in problems for the boards in enforcement and employing bailiffs.
The problem is not exactly black and white. Leaving each board and each proprietor to reach agreement according to the circumstances is reasonable. I am taking a close interest in what is happening in the Moray firth area where some nets have been withdrawn and problems are being caused. At this time of night I do not want to go into the complications.
I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend twice, but I hope that he will accept that the machinery exists for a board to take action. Given the consequences that could befall a board if the automatic provision which he proposes were agreed, it is best to rely on the provisions in the two clauses.

Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) should consider the analogy of an empty building. If one abandons a fishery, why should one pay a fishery assessment any more than one would pay


local authority rates on an empty house? As the Minister said, we are discussing voluntary purchases and no one has been put out of work as a result.
Letters which I have received from the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Trust show that the initial operation has been successful. It is sad that assistance is not to be given for assessment. We are leaving the boards as judge and jury in their own cases. The boards are not likely to remove an assessment when they know that they will then lose money. I am disappointed. The Government's decision is a slap in the face for the conservation trust which is doing so much, and to others who are trying to buy out nets to improve the stocking of rivers. There are many conflicting interests involved in a Bill of this sort.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 17

TENURE OF OFFICE

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 17, line 4, leave out from 'he' to the end of line 5 and insert
'shall cease to be a member of that board'.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) tabled an amendment in Committee to do what our amendment provides and I was prepared to accept it, but the hon. Gentleman was not present to move his amendment. Indeed, he is not here now to hear me say that, having not had the opportunity to accept his amendment, I have brought forward my own.

Mr. Home Robertson: I must jump to the defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). I suspect that he would have been so acutely embarrassed at being supported by the Minister that he has absented himself briefly.
I understand that the amendment means that, where a person has ceased to meet the requirements for membership of the board and is no longer a qualified proprietor, he will automatically have to come off the board. Originally it would have been possible to remove a board member only by a resolution of the board. I suppose that that was in keeping with some of the principles of the Bill.
I was a little alarmed that my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West had suggested the amendment, because it goes along with the characteristically enlightened principle that boards will represent and consist of the proprietor, the whole proprietor and nothing but the proprietor, which is a principle that we view with a mixture of disgust and despair.
How do we know when someone has ceased to be the proprietor of a fishery? If a board member surreptitiously sold his fishery—I admit that that is unlikely—or gave it away to a member of his family, how would the rest of the board or anyone else know that the qualifying ownership had ceased? If the member remained on the board, could that invalidate the proceedings of the board retrospectively? There is a problem for the Minister to conjure with.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

ADDITIONAL POWERS IN RESPECT OF LICENSING AND REGULATION OF SALMON DEALING

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 18, line 25, at end insert
'but not so as to enable these powers to be exercised in any dwellinghouse or any yard, garden, outhouses and pertinents belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith'.
As the House knows, some misgivings have been expressed about the possible extent of the powers of search and entry that may be given to water bailiffs under dealer licensing. We had a long debate on the subject in Committee. I have reflected on it and am conscious of the continuing worry on the matter, and I think that it would be desirable to carry the undertaking that I gave in Committee into the Bill. I hope that the House will welcome the amendment.

Mr. Home Robertson: It was an understatement for the Minister to say that there are misgivings about this matter. I stress that the Opposition support the principle of dealer licensing and we are glad that it has been beefed up during the passage of the Bill, because it would have been absurd if, as the Government originally suggested, dealer licensing had applied only to Scotland. To be effective it must be a national scheme.
However, I am very worried that the Government have jettisoned several fundamental civil liberties to make it easier to enforce the dealer licensing system. In Committee we discussed bailiffs and their powers of search and entry, and we welcome the concession in the amendment, which will at least prevent bailiffs from entering and searching people's homes and gardens.
The Minister knows that we are profoundly worried about the way in which bailiffs are selected, appointed and controlled and governed. Obviously we need people to enforce the regulations—that is what bailiffs are meant to do—but the Bill gives wide powers to people who are, in effect, the appointees of the proprietors and do not have to be vetted by the police or have formal training. Indeed, I understand that some foreigners have been appointed as temporary bailiffs. People from South Africa and goodness knows where else have been taking on such jobs.
I acknowledge that the vast majority of bailiffs are honest and conscientious people who do an important job responsibly, but we have all heard the horror stories, and we related some of them in Committee. We heard a lot about what was happening on the Grimersta estate in the Western Isles. More recently I heard that a bailiff on the North Harris estate broke somebody's jaw in the course of carrying out his duties. In another case, another bailiff on the same estate threatened to "shoot like a seal", as he put it, somebody who he found swimming in the loch in that area. There are some hair-raising bailiffs going around, and something ought to be done about the way in which such people are trained, vetted and governed.
There is a need for better provisions for governing bailiffs, and it would be intolerable for such people to go into people's homes. We are certainly thankful for small mercies and welcome the significant concession made by the Minister. He has at least made it clear that such people will not be allowed to enter people's homes and gardens and buildings around their homes in the course of their investigations.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I welcome the Minister's amendment. I was entranced by the prospect of South Africans wielding sjamboks while patrolling our rivers, but the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) was right to spell out some of the nasty incidents that have taken place. One of the objections that many had to the original provisions was the idea that water bailiffs could have powers that would not necessarily be held by the police. Even if they were held by the police, they should never be conferred on people without qualifications or training in the work that they are doing. The amendment is useful for the protection of civil liberties and on that basis I agree with it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 18, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Members of the Committee will remember that this amendment was tabled by Opposition Members who expressed some doubts about this clause. Their doubts centred on possible loopholes and I said at the time that I understood the difficulties. With some trepidation, I am now doing that which I was asked to do. I hope that that does not mean that we are to have a long debate about it, as happened on the last amendment. I understand the difficulties and the best way to resolve them is to remove subsection (2) so that nothing is pre-empted. In the order introducing the dealer licensing scheme we will specify the class or classes of salmon or dealings in salmon that are to be excluded from the scheme. I am doing what the Committee asked me to do, and I hope that will be welcomed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

OFFENCE OF POSSESSING SALMON WHICH HAVE BEEN ILLEGALLY TAKEN KILLED OR LANDED

Mr. Wilson: I beg to move, in page 19, line 29, leave out from `(a)' to 'is' in line 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 19, in page 19, line 29, leave Out from 'believes;' to end of line 32.
No. 20, in page 19, line 31, leave out
'it would be reasonable for him to suspect'
and insert
'he had grounds to believe'.
No. 21, in page 20, leave out lines 8 and 9.
No. 30, in clause 31, page 26, line 35, leave out
'it would be reasonable for him to expect that'
and insert
'has grounds to believe'.

Mr. Wilson: I should like to speak also in support of amendment No. 21. The provisions of clause 21 are totally obnoxious. I do not know from which legal code they have been dredged, but any provision in statute which starts from the assumption or presumption of guilt is abhorrent to all of us. No doubt the Minister will be able to provide some precedent, probably an earlier statute, for the wording given in clause 21 7A(1)(a). The wording reads:
is in possession of salmon and believes".
I have never come across a clause couched in such subjective language. How can one prove that somebody believes something without exposing that person to some

kind of drug or hallucinatory interrogation to find out what they may or may not believe? It is not practicable, nor is it capable of being proved in court. Clause 21 7A(1) (a) is unnecessary and undesirable and should be removed.
That would still leave paragraph (b) relating to being in possession of salmon. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has tabled an amendment on that point. The offence that the Government want on the statute book is, I presume, a rewording of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. Certainly the offence of being
in possession of salmon and believes
would be a legal minefield when interpreted by the courts.
My views on the purpose of amendment No. 21 are even stronger than on amendment No. 18. I have already stated my dislike of the presumption of guilt that is a central part of the clause. We should especially consider subsection (3), which I want excised. It states:
It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness.
That flies wholly against the evidentiary requirements of the law of Scotland, under which a person should be presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. The burden of proof lies with the Crown, and that is enforced by higher standards than apply to civil law and must be beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is worth reminding the House that in the Slater case in 1928 Lord Clyde said that the innocence requirement was
fundamental to the whole system of criminal prosecution. It applies to every person charged with a criminal offence in precisely the same way and it can be overcome only by evidence relevant to prove the crime with commission of which he is charged.
I suspect that a charge of being in possession of salmon would be as important to the accused person as would be the charge for someone accused of murder, robbery, rape or whatever. In other words, the same standards should be applied to each and every criminal charge.
An essential part of the criminal law of Scotland is the corroboration of evidence. I am well aware that where someone is in possession of property that has been proved to have been stolen the accused can be under an obligation to explain the circumstances by which he acquired it. The Crown does not have to prove dishonest intent. However, in all cases it is essential that the Crown proves both possession and that the goods were stolen. The onus is on the Crown to do that by corroboration.
Other than that provision, under Scottish law no one can be convicted on his own confession without corroborating evidence or evidence acceptable to the court that not only stands on its own legs but is supported by additional information. For example, there could be corroboration by two or more witnesses or by one witness who can be supported by facts and circumstances giving rise to that corroboration. In this instance we are running counter to the basic rules of justice.
I do not know why this has found its way into the legislation. It may simply be because in the past the landed interests had an exceptional amount of power, almost feudal power, and were able to impose their will. Crimes against property or thefts of large sums of money sometimes, even today in the courts, seem to be penalised more severely than cases of murder. Human life is sometimes seen to be less sacrosanct than property.
It is a minority who own salmon fisheries and they are given exceptional powers of protection under this legislation. I earlier welcomed the amendment moved by the Minister to prevent water bailiffs from being able to go into private houses. However, that still leaves us with the unfortunate situation, outlined by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), whereby water bailiffs, without any training, will be able to give evidence to the courts and the evidence upon which conviction can take place is that of one witness or one water bailiff.
The reason why, in the past, courts have insisted on corroboration is that it is wrong to trust human nature. Indeed, there may be a temptation for a water bailiff to tell lies or, if he bears a grudge against an alleged poacher or knows somebody has been poaching but there is no evidence, to plant a salmon. It may well be that the poacher or person dealing in salmon could be correctly dealt with under criminal law and have truly committed the offence, but it may be that an innocent person is found guilty. Even with the laws of corroboration, there are still people who have been convicted by the courts and who are subsequently pardoned because the fallibility of justice has been shown to exist. The exercise of justice is a human matter and all of us are subject to error.
In cases of the possession of salmon, I would prefer the judgment to be made by the courts in the light of the general criminal law of the country and on the laws of evidence as they apply to all other crimes, instead of giving special rights to fishery owners. In its present form this is very primitive. It is the sort of thing that may come up in legal systems that are still in the course of development but which in more civilised times would have been altered so as to provide fairness.
I do not know where the law has come from. I am not sure whether the law of corroboration is the same in England as in Scotland. However, it is generally accepted in Scotland that nobody can be convicted without evidence which is not only credible but corroborated. I suggest to the House that it would perpetuate bad law if we provided rules of evidence for the possession of salmon which we are not prepared to allow in connection with other offences, both serious and minor. It is the duty of the House to remove bad law when it comes across it; otherwise, if one goes back to some of the rules that existed, especially in England, with regard to poaching offences for game or salmon, the lopping off of hands or transportation might still be appropriate punishments. We got rid of those punishments years ago and I suggest that now is the time to remove this relic of the poaching or game laws.
We are not talking of a minor offence. The penalty on summary conviction can be three months' imprisonment or a maximum fine. I am not sure what the maximum fine is these days — it is jacked up all the time to meet inflation — but it can be three months or perhaps something in excess of £1,000 as a fine, or both. If somebody is taken on indictment, it can mean two years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. That should not be visited on any citizen of any country on the unsupported testimony of one witness.

Mr. Home Robertson: Amendment No. 18 had me a little baffled, because it takes out the only justified paragraph in the clause — the one that provides that

those who know that they have committed an offence can be prosecuted. I support the second amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), amendment No. 21—he may have noticed that I put my name to it —which concerns corroboration. This issue was debated fully in Committee, and we voted against the situation in which somebody could be convicted of possessing salmon simply on the evidence of a single bailiff, when in all probability the bailiff was the employee of the water proprietor in question. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, it would be far too easy for somebody to plant evidence and lie to the court. It would be outrageous if somebody were to be convicted under those circumstances. It would invite the court to convict on unsafe grounds, and Parliament should not pass such sloppy and potentially dangerous legislation. It is our duty to protect the innocent, and that should never be superseded by our enthusiasm to punish the guilty.
Amendment No. 19 and amendments Nos. 28 and 30 in the name of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are intended to restrict the scope of the prosecution under the clause to those who have knowingly committed an offence. They cover the point about the presumption of innocence being brought into this procedure rather than the abhorrent principle of the assumption of guilt, about which we should all become worried.
As drafted, the Bill will make it possible to convict people who should have known that they were committing an offence. Who should have known and who should not have known whether they were committing an offence when they were purchasing salmon? The world may be full of nasty suspicious people such as the Minister and me, who always assume that others have the worst possible motives, but just because we spend our lives in the company of politicians we should not overlook the fact that there are some honest, decent simple and straightforward people elsewhere in the country. If somebody were to come up to the Minister or to me and offer a fresh salmon at a reasonable price, we might be suspicious about where it had come from. Let us take somebody like yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I were to offer you a fresh salmon, you might accept it from me in all innocence. Under clause 71, it would be possible for you to be convicted of possessing an illegally taken salmon on the ground that you ought to have suspected that I was dealing in poached salmon.
There may be grounds for allowing courts to prosecute in such circumstances, and to crack down on some particularly heinous crime such as drug trafficking, but such a breach of an important principle of Scots law cannot be justified to convict people who did not know that they were doing anything wrong, just to protect salmon. As the hon. Member for Dundee, East said, this can lead to heavy fines, terms of imprisonment and criminal records hanging over people for the rest of their lives. It is wrong that Parliament should allow courts to convict in such circumstances, and the Minister must take these points on board.

Mr. Beith: With a Scottish solicitor and a Scottish advocate sitting beside me on the Liberal Bench, I shall concentrate my remarks on the English amendment of the two standing in my name. Amendment No. 20 is worded


in almost the same way as the other two amendments. They address the terms by which someone can be convicted, namely, if
it would be reasonable for him to suspect
that a relevant offence has been committed. I argue that there should be grounds for a person to believe that an offence has been committed. The words that I have quoted have to be seen in conjunction with subsection (3) of clause 31 which states:
It shall he immaterial for the purposes of subsection (1) above that a person's belief or the grounds for suspicion—
that is, the grounds that he ought to have had—
relate neither specifically to a particular offence that has been committed nor exclusively to a relevant offence or to relevant offences;
The only qualification that the clause continues to offer is that
it shall be a defence in proceedings … to show that no relevant offence had in fact been committed in relation to the salmon in question.
If a person can prove that the salmon had not been poached he has demonstrated his innocence by disproving the assumptions of guilt which the two parts of the clause taken together impute.
In Committee we were regaled at length by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the "poor wee crofter woman." She became a favoured figure on the Committee. A salmon was placed at her door and she came forthwith to the conclusion that it was a gift from God. It was indeed such a gift. Other agents may have participated in this heavenly donation but it was a gift from God. The woman was guilty because it would have been reasonable for her to suspect that the person who laid the salmon at her door would have come to the front door and knocked and charged her for it had he been a legitimate salmon trader who had obtained the salmon legally. The poor crofter woman has to be found guilty because it would have been reasonable for her to suspect that a relevant offence had been committed.
We must, however, consider other characters as well as the crofter woman. Let us suppose that the Minister had bought a raffle ticket for a worthy cause and that the first prize was a fresh salmon. Suppose the fresh salmon was presented to him as a result of his success in the raffle. However, it would have been reasonable for him to suspect that a relevant offence had been committed in relation to that salmon because it was known that poaching took place in the locality in which the raffle ticket was bought, and it was known that among the supporters of the worthy cause there were people who, at some time, had been found guilty of poaching. It could be argued that it was reasonable for the Minister, in those circumstances, to have suspected that a relevant offence had been committed.

Dr. Godman: As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is something of a legal expert, I hope that he can answer a question that is puzzling me. If the "wee wifey" had been presented with a salmon that had been gutted — or headed as it is called — and filleted, would she then have faced criminal charges?

Mr. Beith: Yes; it would have made no difference. She would have been presented with a salmon even though some bits were missing from it. No doubt my hon. Friends would he able to sustain a case for days, nay weeks, on the question of whether a gutted salmon was a whole salmon or whet her a half or a third of a salmon was a salmon. Let

me disclaim any suggestion that I am a legal expert. Far from it. If I were, I would be as well endowed as some of my hon. Friends who have pursued the law to such lengths.
There is obviously endless scope for legal argument. However, an individual has the imputation of guilt posed against him because it would have been reasonable for him to suspect that an offence had been committed. He may have had no such suspicion in his mind. He may be an unsuspecting soul and he may not have drawn the conclusions which the court thinks that he ought to have drawn from circumstances in his area. He may not be able to disprove the prosecution case by demostrating that he had no such belief. The absence of that belief is not a defence. He must prove that it would not even have been reasonable for him to suspect.
This seems to place the onus of proof of innocence on the individual in a quite unreasonable way. It is a way of framing the law that has not been entertained in respect of far more serious offences involving far greater dangers. There are well-known difficulties about obtaining prosecutions for salmon offences, but they have not stopped a great many people from being successfully prosecuted in the courts in my constituency and in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). There have been many prosecutions of late.
Even if there are difficulties, we must pause and think before writing into the law this presumption of guilt which has not been found necessary in relation to much more serious offences.

Mr. John MacKay: Let me first, Mr. Deputy Speaker, set your mind at rest in case the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) presents you with a salmon. I think you would have a very reasonable defence if you said that the hon. Gentleman was a large estate owner on the banks of the River Tweed. Therefore, if he does present you with a salmon you can take 1t without much fear — [Interruption.] My right hon. friend the Minister of State tells me that he thinks he will take the risk of the raffle prize.

Mr. James Wallace: No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you did have knowledge. At least you have now been told that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is a large riparian owner. What if someone did not know that? What situation would he be in?

Mr. MacKay: I do not want to go into all the details, but I just gave Mr. Deputy Speaker the defence that he would have in these circumstances. One must look to the particular circumstance.
One of the Bill's major aims is to provide effective measures against the poaching, taking, selling and distribution of illegal salmon. A lot of pressure from all the outside bodies has been on us to strengthen the law. In fact, many people do not think that the Government have gone nearly far enough, but I fully appreciate that if I had gone that far in relation to the onus of proof, some of the points made by hon. Members would be valid. That is why I have not gone as far as many other people wished me to go.
What I have done is reasonable and precedented. In Scotland the alternative of proving suspicious circumstances is contained in section 7 of the Salmon and


Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Act 1951. For example, a court may convict for an offence under section 15 or sections 18 to 24 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 on the evidence of one witness. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) wanted precedents, and I would have thought that those were good ones. The position is maintained in clause 29. There is also section 7 of the 1951 Act and section 25 of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959.
In all those areas, as in this one, the nature of the offences creates difficulties for enforcement officers and in my mind justifies the relaxation of the requirement for corroborative evidence. That was part and parcel of a long discussion that we had in Committee, when hon. Members put their points, and in each case their points were defeated when pressed to a Division.

Mr. Wilson: The precedents that the Minister has given come from salmon and game laws. What other precedents can he find in the general criminal law? Why should we relax these provisions for poachers and those in possession of salmon when we are not prepared to do so in cases of murder, rape and so on?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should talk to some of the people who are interested in the conservation of salmon and the prevention of poaching. He will then realise that many of the offences take place at the back of beyond, at night and in circumstances where life is not easy for the bailiffs and police.
11.45 pm
The prosecutor must show that the accused believed that the salmon in his possession had been taken illegally, by an admission of guilt by the accused. It has been argued that that will be knocked out by one of the amendments. Alternatively, the prosecutor may need evidence to show that the circumstances in which the accused had salmon in his possession were such that he ought to have suspected that the salmon had been illegally taken.
I am merely trying to explain what the words mean. We had long debates in Committee on this matter and, frankly, I believe that enforcement is a genuine problem. Opposition Members have said how keen they are to conserve salmon, and how keen they are to eliminate poaching, yet when it comes to doing something about it they wish to leave the law as powerless as it is at present.

Mr. Home Robertson: rose—

Mr. MacKay: We believe that enforcement is a great problem.

Mr. Home Robertson: The Minister is right in saying that attempting to prosecute people is difficult in these circumstances. Surely he will acknowledge that there is an even greater problem in prosecuting serious crimes, such as drug trafficking. Do the Government intend to introduce similar draconian measures for other offences?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman should stick to what we are discussing—salmon and the associated problems.
All the amendments under discussion would weaken the clause. They would weaken the stand that we are taking against poachers and other illegal fishermen. I believe that the courts will look sensibly at the evidence —after all, that is their job—and judge. The clause will improve and strengthen the law. Those who wish to water

it down and who offer no alternatives for reforming the law are hypocritical about salmon conservation and protection. I hope that they will have the decency to keep their mouths shut when it comes to preventing poaching and preserving salmon.

Mr. Wallace: I have listened with interest and care to the Minister's point that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is known—to Members of this House—to be a riparian land owner. I am in no way casting blame in his direction because of that fact.
If the hon. Member for East Lothian presented me with a salmon there would be no reasonable grounds to suppose that it was an illegal salmon. On the other hand, if an innocent member of the public were presented with a free salmon from a Labour Member he would never dream for one moment that that hon. Member was a large landowner on the banks of the Tweed. In such circumstances it may be said that he had reasonable grounds to suspect that the salmon was illegal.
My hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) gave the example of a prize-winning raffle ticket. The Minister dismissed that suggestion, but a court might decide that such a prize fell within the ambit of this clause. It is all very well for us to know what we do not mean by legislation but unless that is stated on the statute book the court will pay no regard to it.
The courts would not be aware that the raffle ticket scenario was laughed out of the House. The wording of the statute may allow the courts to put any construction on a case. When we create offences, it is incumbent on the House to make sure that they are defined strictly to ensure that wider interpretation is not possible. It is one of the cardinal principles of criminal law that the citizen accused should know, with some precision, what does and does not constitute an offence. As it stands, the clause is too wide. The amendment limits it and makes it more precise.
Corroboration is a very important part of the law of Scotland. It is an important evidential requirement—not on every point but on the cardinal points that constitute the crime. The Minister has given some precedents. However, the law of corroboration has been built up over many centuries and is a fundamental part of Scottish law.
It is all very well for the Minister to say that today we are discussing salmon, not drugs, but it is not unfair to make that comparison. He said that one must remember the difficulties that have to be faced when trying to prove a crime and obtain a conviction. However, the smuggling of drugs does not take place in the open. Those who are trying to put an end to the smuggling of drugs are faced with problems when trying to obtain proof. Scottish policemen travel around in twos, so why should bailiffs not go around in twos if that is a corroboration requirement of Scottish law?
When precedents are set we are treading on dangerous ground. The Minister is a great person for precedents. Those hon. Members who have sat on other Committees with him know that when a clause is challenged as a novel departure he will reel off precedents. Tonight we are providing yet another precedent. If he wants to use it in connection with other parts of the law of Scotland to erode the evidential law of corroboration that has been built up over many years, he will cite it as a precedent. By that means, bit by bit, eventually we shall find that the bulwarks of Scottish law that are there for a very good reason have been slowly eroded away.
The Minister has not provided us with a convincing reason why offences relating to salmon should be treated in a different way from more serious crimes, and if the mover of the amendment thinks fit to press it to a Division I shall be prepared to support him.

Mr. Wilson: I have heard some weak arguments from the Dispatch Box over the years, but this is one of the weakest. But it is not the weakness of the argument to which I object; it is its sheer immorality.
To return to the absence of precedent, the Minister was unable to find any precedent outside the game and fishing laws of the 19th century. He had the utter gall to bring that to our attention, as though that were a justification in itself. I have already said that this is had law and that it is completely at variance with the rest of the law of Scotland, in terms of evidential requirements.
The Minister would fit more happily into the role of a prosecutor than into the role of ensuring that justice is done in Scottish courts. It is axiomatic that 10 guilty men should go unpunished rather than that one innocent man should be wrongfully convicted. If the Minister had kept that as his objective, he would not have strayed from the path.
The attitude adopted by the Minister and the Government is horrifying. However, the Conservative party has always been the party of landed interests. When it comes to the rights of the citizen and the estate landlord, we know on whose side it will come down. I wish, therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to put amendment No. 21 to the vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate has taken place on amendment No. 18. If the hon. Gentleman would prefer there to be a vote on amendment No. 21, that would be in order. In that case, does he wish to withdraw amendment No. 18?

Mr. Wilson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 18.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, No. 21, in page 20, leave out lines 8 and 9.—[Mr. Wilson.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes, 12, Noes 70.

Division No. 295]
[11.55 pm


AYES


Beith, A. J.
Randall, Stuart


Canavan, Dennis
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Home Robertson, John
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archy



Livsey, Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Gordon Wilson and


Pike, Peter
Dr. Norman A. Godman.


NOES


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Cope, John


Blackburn, John
Couchman, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bottomley, Peter
Dover, Den


Brinton, Tim
Durant, Tony


Burt, Alistair
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Cash, William
Hayes, J.


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jones, Robert (Herts W)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)





Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Raffan, Keith


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Lester, Jim
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lightbown, David
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lord, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spencer, Derek


Maclean, David John
Stern, Michael


Maude, Hon Francis
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waller, Gary


Neubert, Michael
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilkinson, John


Norris, Steven
Wolfson, Mark


Onslow, Cranley



Osborn, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Portillo, Michael
Mr. Richard Ryder.


Powley, John

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Home Robertson: I beg to move amendment NO. 22, in page 21, line 5, leave out paragraph (b).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Government amendment No. 23.

Mr. Home Robertson: When considering amendment No. 16 we debated the question of the power to enter and search private dwellings in relation to dealer licensing. We now come to the same point in relation to powers of search and entry without a warrant to secure evidence of possession of poached salmon.
Parliament should think carefully before allowing bailiffs or constables to gain entry to people's property without a warrant. There is concern about the possible shortcomings of bailiffs—an issue that we have already discussed. I am not the only one to suggest that there should be better provision governing the quality, vetting and training of bailiffs. Many hon. Members have received representations from the superintendent of the Forth District Salmon Fishery Board. Serious misgivings have been expressed, by people experienced in these matters, about the qualifications of bailiffs.
There may be a case for this type of infringement of civil liberties — letting bailiffs or constables enter people's dwelling houses—to make it easier to deal with serious crime, but I have grave doubts whether that can be justified in the quest for evidence of salmon poaching.
It has been said that an Englishman's home is his castle. I suggest that Scots also have rights in their own homes, including the right to protection against over-zealous bailiffs kicking people's doors down to search for contraband salmon. I therefore welcome the Government's concession in amendment No. 23, which will at least exclude people's dwelling houses and gardens from this right to enter and search without a warrant. The Minister should be ashamed of himself for ever having suggested that such powers should be included in the Bill in the first place. But we are grateful to him for listening for once to our arguments in Committee.

Mr. John MacKay: The point that the hon. Member makes was discussed at length in Committee. Having given


careful thought to the matter, I have tabled amendment No. 23. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment and that the House will accept mine.

Mr. Home Robertson: I had intended to make that clear. In view of the terms of the Minister's amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 21, line 11, after `premises', insert
`(other than a dwelling house or any yard, garden, outhouses and pertinents belonging thereto or usually enjoyed therewith)'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 30

DEALER LICENSING IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Mr. Rowlands: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 25, line 30, leave out 'may' and insert
`shall, within six months after the coming into force of this section of this Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suggest that it would be convenient for the House to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 25, in page 25, line 30, after `may' insert
`after consulting representatives of such interests as appear to him to be affected'.
No. 26, in page 25, line 35, leave out
`such person as may be so specified'
and insert 'a water authority'.
No. 27, in page 26, line 15, at end insert 'by a water authority'.

Mr. Rowlands: The amendment stands in the names of a large number of hon. Members, including many who represent Welsh constituencies. It has been an advantage to have had a Scottish period, so to speak, in debating the amendments; we began with Welsh affairs and now we return to those matters. In the interim, those of us who represent Welsh constituencies have had time to reflect on the Minister's arguments in rejecting our new clauses 4, 5 and 6.
The Minister spoke of what he regarded as a series of practical problems against tagging. In his view, licensed dealers will help conservation. The Minister clearly reached that view as he proceeded along the road to conversion. We, too, believe in salvation, and if licensed dealing is the salvation of the nation's salmon stocks, that salvation should come as quickly as possible, and the amendment would ensure that the scheme commenced within six months. Perhaps we should adopt the form of words that the Minister used earlier and say that the scheme should begin "prior to the next season". To what time scale is he working for the introduction of the licensed dealer system?
Secondly, who will be responsible for the licensing? The amendment recommends that the responsibility should lie with the water authorities for England and Wales, and it would not make much sense for a Welsh local authority to be the licensing or enforcement authority. Bearing in mind the experience, professionalism and knowledge of the water authorities, I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the amendment. Surely it would be unimaginable to vest responsibility for such a licensing system in a Welsh district authority or county council.

Counties and districts are not uneager to accept powers in our communities, but in this instance I do not think that they would contend that they would be the appropriate bodies to accept the licensing responsibility. I speak chiefly for the Principality, and I believe that the Welsh water authority would be the obvious body to undertake licensing and enforcement responsibilities.
I should like to know how the proposed system will be financed. What sort of expenditure is envisaged or expected following the introduction of the licensing system? I hope that the Minister will tell us rather more of the Department's thinking about the system of payment apart from enforcement, licensing and the proposed timescale.
The Minister has argued that the tagging system that we propose would involve many practical difficulties. We are discussing anti-poaching measures that are vital to conservation, and any new system will be difficult to implement. We know the sophistication, scale and character of poaching, and when I listened to the Minister I thought that an accommodation could be reached by substituting "licensed dealing" for "tagging". In any event, how will a licensed dealer identify whether the fish that he is being sold has been caught legally or illegally? That is a simple question and I hope that the Minister will respond with a simple answer. Tagging offers at least a possibility or probability of some identification of legality or legitimacy of the catch. Will the dealer be expected to ask whether the seller is an authorised dealer? What sort of documentation will a seller have to present?

Mr. Onslow: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: We support the licensed dealer system and we are grateful that the system will apply in England and Wales. The Bill would be entirely Scottish if that were not the position. I have no reason to wish to undermine confidence in the licensed dealer system. However, as the Minister has argued strenuously against the scheme that we proposed, which was complementary to licensed dealing, we are entitled to pose a series of genuine queries and questions on behalf of the many anglers and others who are interested in the conservation of salmon in the Principality.

Mr. Onslow: It would be helpful to have an answer to another question. Let us suppose that someone is fortunate enough to catch a big salmon in a Welsh river, he brings it to London and sells it to a restaurant in the Kings road. Must he have a licence to buy and sell salmon? Where will the restaurant get its licence and how will the proceeds go back to where they belong — the water authority?

Mr. Rowlands: I look forward to an answer to that question.
When we press the Minister it is not in a spirit of trying to undermine the proposed system. We want to make it work. I believe that the water authority will be able to make it work. We want a practical answer to the question. This is our salvation. Let us operate the system as quickly as possible.

Mr. Beith: I am in favour of the extension of dealer licensing to England and Wales. I understand why in July the Minister was unable to say in Committee who would operate the system in England and Wales and why he was


unable to put the details in the Bill as they were set out for Scotland. For Scotland the powers are given to local authorities under existing legislation.
It is not satisfactory, however, that at this stage we still do not know to whom the powers are to be entrusted. One of the amendments argues that the powers should be given specifically to the water authorities. I believe that the water authorities should have the powers, but that would not remain my view if the water authorities were privatised. I am relieved that the Government have had to abandon their intention to privatise the water authorities. If they were privatised they would not be appropriate bodies to operate the dealer licensing scheme, any more than some of the other functions ascribed to them under the Bill which involve a public body regulating who shall be allowed to carry out certain activities. That is not a suitable power for a private organisation.
The Minister should by now be able to say to which public body these functions are to be given. Because he has been unable to decide, the Bill contains enabling provisions which give him the opportunity to implement his decision later. He is given wide powers. Partly because of that I tabled an amendment to force him to consult relevant interests. But my concern goes wider than consultation. An amendment in the next group involves criminal offences.
I hope that the Minister can tell us who will carry out the dealer licensing and how quickly the scheme can be introduced.

Mr. Gummer: The water authorities will be asked to carry out these requirements. I hope that the House will not find it necessary to press the amendment to that effect because if at some future time the constitution of the water authorities becomes different, or if it is more sensible that some other body be involved, I should not like to have to change primary legislation. It is more sensible to leave matters as they are, but the House has my assurnace that the water authorities will have the powers.
The cost of the scheme will be paid for by the water authorities from their resources. They will levy licences and the money so raised will help pay for the scheme.
Other matters have to be sorted out and we shall look at the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). It would be wrong for me to hide from him the fact that in our discussions we shall have to accept that one problem with the water authorities carrying out the responsibilities is that some have a much greater interest in the matter than others. I know that the authorities are keen to find an appropriate system.
My answer to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is that I hope very much that there will be no delay in the implementation of the dealer licensing scheme. I am committed to it, I was happy to insist on its extension to England and Wales and I was pleased that my colleagues in the Welsh Office agreed to the change. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman has my personal support for the speediest possible introduction of the new scheme.
However, I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen to those who say that there are a number of problems about which we shall need to have considerable discussions. I ask him not to press the argument that we should be bound to a date, because a date would be necessary only if we were unwilling to move as fast as we can and we are willing to move as fast as possible. However, we must make sure that

the system will work and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is not always easy to ensure that. I do not want a system that falls down because we have not prepared it properly. After all, we are giving licences to people who have not hitherto had to have licences, sometimes for anything.
That is the wrong time of night to go through the various ways in which the scheme will be able to be operated satisfactorily, but a licensee will have to ask the sort of questions that will protect him from the change in the law that provides that he can be found guilty if it would have been reasonable for him to believe that salmon that he was buying had been illegally taken.
To take the example quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, the Kings road restaurateur offered a good fat salmon from Wales will have to satisfy himself that the salmon had been properly caught and had not been taken illegally. There will be a number of ways in which he can do that and one will be to satisfy himself that the man had the right to take the salmon. If he is knowledgeable about salmon and there are gill marks on the fish that lead him to believe that it was taken improperly, he will have to take account of that. He will keep records and they could be checked by the water authorities.
I assure the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil arid Rhymney that we are making every effort—

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend deal with the linked point of how the Thames water authority, which will presumably have sold the dealer's licence to the Kings road restaurant, will be made to remit the proceeds to the Welsh water authority which would have been responsible for producing the salmon?

Mr. Gummer: We shall be discussing that issue with the water authorities which have already discussed it among themselves because they have problems of enforcement. They have pooling arrangements in other areas and no doubt they will be considering such an arrangement in this area.
I assure hon. Members that we intend to get the new system into operation as rapidly as possible. Indeed, we must do so. I have given a number of assurances arid the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney is right to say that if we cannot get the system into operation rapidly enough everything else will fall.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to our amendments. I am more than happy to accept his personal assurances. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Beith: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 26, line 33, at end insert—
'(7) A person guilty of an offence under any Order made under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory minimum or to both:
(b) on conviction on indictment, to an imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both.'.

One of the consequences of the wide powers given Ito the Minister in clause 30 is that he can
create criminal offences consisting in the contravention of, or failure to comply with, provisions made under this section".
I do not believe that Ministers should be given the power to create criminal offences by statutory instrument. Such


offences should be created by primary legislation. Whatever extenuating circumstances one can produce in any given case, it is bad practice for the House to make criminal offences by statutory instrument. That is why I have tabled an amendment which tries to specify one aspect of the matter—what the punishments for these criminal offences could be.
One of the consequential provisions that the Minister has power to put into effect is to decide what the punishment should be. He has tremendous scope and anything from a small fine to the death penalty seems to be within the range of possibilities open to him. When he has finally made his decision, it comes before the House in a statutory instrument that cannot be amended. All that the House can do is vote to approve or disapprove of it. No other choice is available to the House and that is not a satisfactory way in which to create criminal law or to decide upon penalties. Despite the reasons that can be advanced for doing it in this case, the House should protest whenever it is attempted. My amendment is designed to limit the Minister's ability so to legislate because it is an improper way to create criminal law.

Mr. Gummer: The kind of amounts and the matters that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has put forward are far from the sort of order one is thinking about. I ask him to accept that when one is trying to work out a new system like this in response to the pressures of the Committee, it must be right to try to fix the amounts after the system has been produced. He is right to say that it will have to be presented to the House. Hon. Members can refuse to accept the order and it is unamendable. He is right about those things, but given the arguments that we have heard and the precedents and other examples in the Bill, it is difficult to say that this power is likely to be used in any extraordinary way.
I promise the hon. Gentleman that we will not reintroduce the death penalty for this issue. It is rather overdoing it to suggest that the Executive will suddenly get their heads down and do something appalling. That will not happen. To give us no opportunity to change the punishments when the value of money or the situation changes considerably will only take us back to the point where some of the things that we are amending this time have not been amended since 1862. That is a reasonable argument and I hope that the House will accept it.

Mr. Beith: There is now a system of scale fines which gets over the difficulty of inflation, making fines unnecessary. The principle remains that these offences should be created not by statutory instrument but by primary legislation.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 31

HANDLING SALMON IN SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

Mr. Randall: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 26, line 34, leave out 'subsections (3) and (4)' and insert `subsection (4)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 31, in page 27, line 4, leave out subsection (3).
No. 32, in page 27, line 7, leave out from 'committed' to 'but' in line 8.

Mr. Randall: Amendment No. 31 is about the deletion of subsection (3) and amendment No. 29 is a minor consequential amendment arising from that deletion.
Many of the arguments surrounding this amendment have been expressed in relation to other amendments and clauses. The purpose of the amendment is to protect innocent people who did not realise that they were breaking the law by handling salmon. We must have effective protection to overcome the abuse of poaching. I think everybody on the Committee accepted that there would have to be effective measures.
I am in a dilemma. On the one hand, we need tough and effective legislation to make sure that abuse is properly dealt with. On the other hand, this same legislation, because it is comprehensive and strong, creates the risk of convicting somebody who did not know that he was breaking the law. It could be costly in human terms if we were to convict someone who genuinely did not realise that he was breaking the law. Hon. Members have a duty to protect people against such an error. The Bill makes it too easy to convict an innocent person who genuinely did not realise that he was handling illegally obtained fish.
We need tough legislation because we are dealing with a tough problem. However, it is important to recognise that there is an ethical argument that hon. Members must address. That is why we should delete subsection (3).

Mr. Beith: I shall not repeat the arguments about burden of proof that we advanced earlier—the essential principle is the same. During that debate I referred—slightly ahead of myself—to subsection (3). I must ask the Minister what it means. It appears to mean that it is not possible for a person to advance in his own defence that there were no grounds for believing that the person who had sold him the salmon had committed an offence or for believing that anyone had poached any salmon in the area where he bought his salmon. That is all immaterial—he can still be convicted on the basis that he should have had reason to believe that someone, some time, might have poached salmon and that that might be the salmon that had fallen into his hands.
It appears that it is not possible for that person to argue in his defence that, as far as he knew, no one in the locality had committed any offence and that no specific offence had occurred. I cannot think of what else the subsection could mean. Can the Minister tell the House what he thinks it means?

Mr. Gummer: We covered this matter closely in Committee and have tonight returned to the same arguments. At this late hour I shall not go into them in detail because it would be wrong to repeat what we have said so often.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) rather uncharacteristically said on the one hand that he wanted something, but on the other that he was not prepared to pay the price for it.

Mr. Randall: It is a dilemma.

Mr. Gummer: It may be a dilemma, but we cannot solve it by writing into the Bill the action that must be taken and then removing the ability to take that action. That would


be the purpose of the amendment—we would have the offence, because that is what is needed, but would take away the right to prosecute.
Having agonised over creating an offence in a very careful way that does not go so far as to reverse the burden of proof but makes it possible to gain convictions in very difficult areas, it would be wrong for us to negative that by making the changes proposed in the amendment.
The circumstances suggested by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) are very wide of the mark. We have tried to create an offence that would allow us to secure convictions in very difficult circumstances. By its very nature, the sort of evidence that we would like to have of a fish being pulled out of a river, a man standing there with the bailiff beside him and two independent witnesses, does not occur. We must decide how to have an effective conservation policy that means effective enforcement. If we make the changes suggested, they will negative the effectiveness of the creation of an offence.
We have been through a series of debates and this matter has gone backwards and forwards in Committee. On every occasion the Committee decided that it would be right to retain the offence without the changes of this and other kinds that have been put forward by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and his hon. Friends.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister simply answer the question? What does subsection (3) mean and what would be wrong with the Bill if it were taken out?

Mr. Gummer: The purpose is clear. It is to ensure that the prosecution does not have to show that the buyer believed or suspected that a particular offence had been committed but that, in the circumstances, it would be reasonable for him to think that an offence had been committed. The effect in law is seriously different. In one circumstance it would be almost impossible to prove guilt in cases where there has been an offence and where everybody knows that the person who bought the salmon knew there had been an offence. That is why we have changed it. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not see the difference. I have tried to explain it in various ways. I believe that most people understand the distinction and that is why on every occasion that this was put to the vote the Committee showed that it supported the balanced view which the Government were putting forward.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 33

INTRODUCTION OF FISH INTO FISH FARMS WITHOUT CONSENT

Amendment made: No 33, in page 28, line 27, leave out from first 'or' to second 'the' in line 29 and insert
`the inland water is one which consists exclusively of, or part of, a fish farm and which, if it discharges into another inland water, does so only through a conduit constructed or adapted for the purpose.
In this section 'fish farm' has the same meaning as in'. —[Mr. Gummer.]

Clause 36

BYELAWS AND SEA FISHERIES REGULATION ACT 1966

Mr. Onslow: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 30, line 11, leave out 'Subject to subsection (3) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 37, in page 30, line 17, at end insert
land must be exercised if the water auhority whose area for the purposes of functions relating to fisheries includes the whole or any part of the committee's sea fishery district have requested that committee so to do'.
No. 38, in page 30, line 28, leave out '(1) or'.
No. 39, in page 30, line 32, at end insert
`or, such consent having been withheld, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, shall have given his consent.'.
Government amendment No. 40.

Mr. Onslow: My right hon. Friend the Minister will remember that we established in Committee that where their spheres of responsibility meet in a number of important estuarial and coastal waters, the interests of the water authorities and the fisheries committees do not always coincide. It is not the duty of the fisheries committees to promote salmon conservation. I have no wish to stir the pot further tonight. My amendment is simply designed to ensure that fisheries committees do not obstruct salmon conservation by refusing to make the bye-laws that are required for that purpose and so leaving unscrupulous sea fishermen free to catch salmon illegally under the cover of fishing for white fish.
The real answer is to have an integrated policy for the management of in-shore fisheries. We do not have it. If my right hon. Friend can show me that he has a better method of achieving progress towards that end than my amendment I shall be happy to withdraw it. However, I should like to hear what he has to say.

Mr. Beith: I supported the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) in Committee on this point. However, the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee says that it does not agree. It takes the view that the amendment proposed would
remove any element of discretion — from the Sea Fisheries Committee inconsistent with and repugnant to the whole concept of the giving by Parliament to Sea Fisheries Committees of powers to make bye-laws.
The view I took in Committee, and the view I still hold, is that where there is an overlapping interest between the fisheries committee and the water authority, cases could arise in which one or other body was not having proper regard to the interests of salmon conservation. It could work either way, which is why my amendment No. 39 is in the same group. That amendment allows the fisheries committees to appeal to the Minister if they have met with objections from the water authority. That quid pro quo might make the proposal of the hon. Member for Woking a little more acceptable. The Minister should consider that if one of the bodies refuses to use the powers available or tries to prevent the powers from being properly used there should be some recourse for them.

Sir Michael Shaw: I realise that there have been considerable debates on this subject. I have received a letter from the North-Eastern Sea Fisheries Committee, and I have talked the matter over with the chairman of that committee. There is a difficulty, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). What we have seen in the way of conservation and protection of the sea fish industry has not convinced me that on this issue the water authorities know better than the local fisheries committees—certainly not in the area that I represent.
The Bill goes a long way towards ensuring that the fisheries committees cannot produce byelaws unless the local water authority gives its consent. To go further and insist that the local fisheries committees should carry out instructions from the water authority would be unwise. The fisheries committees should be encouraged in the task of conserving salmon in the sea. They are much better qualified to do so, and in many cases the water authorities are concerned with inland waterways rather than with the sea. The fisheries committees would do a far better job if they had complete control of dealing with poaching.
Under another part of the Bill, an advisory committee will look into the matter again, and I hope that it will be looked at with a view to seeing whether the fisheries committees might, in the end, be in charge of this important aspect of conservation.

Mr. Rowlands: It is nice to take off one's tribal hat, and I can do so in this case because there is no such Welsh point. We do not have the problem of conflict of interest, which the amendment seeks to get round, and there is no doubt that there will be a conflict of interest. The hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) spoke about the fisheries committees being enthusiastic about salmon conservation, but the people they represent may not be interested in such an aspect. It is a worry of water authorities that the committees will do nothing to promote the byelaws.
The future of conservation lies in enforcement, as has already been said, and in the need for a proper bailiff system. What manpower do the fisheries committees have to enforce such byelaws? The water authorities have a bailiff system, which we have said we should strengthen and improve, but what sort of manpower will the committees invoke to enforce the agreed byelaws? There is a problem, and the water authorities have every right to say that they are concerned and worried that such byelaws will not be promoted, and will not be properly policed and supervised if they are. The water authorities will have as much interest as the fisheries committees in committing themselves to that task, and so should have the manpower to do it. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has put a valid point, and I shall support his amendment.

Mr. Randall: Like other hon. Members, I have a letter from the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee, but it was passed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown). The committee has great reservations about the two amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), particularly amendment No. 36. It feels that, where there is a conflict between the fisheries committees and the water authorities, the Minister should be able to resolve that conflict. The clerk of the committee gave as an example the fixed engines which the committee is desperately anxious to keep, but under this arrangement the water authority could impose its veto and prevent it from doing so. The Northumberland Sea Fisheries committee also made a strong criticism of amendment No. 37. The committee believes that the earlier decisions of Parliament to give powers to the sea fisheries committees to create byelaws would be undermined because water authority permission would have to be sought. I thought that it would be right to put those two points on to the record.

Mr. John Townend: I should like to add my support to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw). There is great concern among the fishing industry in Bridlington at the possible reduction in the power of the sea fisheries committee. I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Minister does not accept the amendment.

Mr. Gummer: It is obvious from the debate that there is a difference of opinion between two perfectly reasonably constituted bodies. We cannot resolve that problem by granting the kind of powers presented in the amendment. It is increasingly important for the two bodies to work closely together. I should reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) that that is precisely what is happening. The intention of amendment No. 40 is to increase the powers of the sea fisheries committees so that they can do more effectively what they have been excluded from doing. The sea fisheries committees, even when they so wished, were specifically excluded from dealing with salmon and sea trout. Amendment No. 40 will correct that position and I hope will grant the committees that power.
Sea fisheries committees differ, so I cannot give a general statement of their resources. However, many committees have considerable resources for dealing with the regulation of matters apart from their main business which is, of course, the regulation of sea fisheries. Those resources can also be applied, and would be appropriate to be applied, to enforcing the byelaws that we are considering now.
I understand the worry expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking about the overlap. However, I do not think that that overlap can be overcome by creating unwilling partners. We must have willing partners. My view which has been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) is that in many cases the sea fisheries committees and the water authorities are working more closely and effectively together. We must encourage that rather than get the whole process off to a bad start by changing the position and make the committees feel that powers given to them by Parliament were now going to be downgraded in that area.
If we find in the light of experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking has been right and that I have been wrong, we will reconsider the matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough suggested. However, the outcome may not be as he wished.

Mr. Onslow: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 30, line 32, at end insert—
`( ) For the purposes of any byelaws made by virtue of this section the references to sea fish in sections 10(2)(c) and 12 of the said Act of 1966 (which include provision with respect to the seizure of, and searches for, sea fish taken in contravention of byelaws) shall be deemed to include references to salmon.' .—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 38

INTERPRETATION

Mr. John MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 32, line 32, leave out 'all'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to consider Government amendment No. 46.

Mr. MacKay: Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 clear up an ambiguity and put the meaning of the clause beyond doubt.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 46, in page 32, line 35, leave out 'all'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Clause 41

CITATION, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 33, line 33, after `enactments', insert
'except section (Disclosure of information furnished under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983)'.
No. 50, in page 33, line 35, after '36', insert
'and section (Disclosure of information furnished under the Diseases of Fish Act 1983)'.
No. 51, in page 33, line 38, leave out 'sections 26, 27 and' and insert `section'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 42, line 16, at end insert—

'Diseases of Fish Act 1937 (c. 33)
In subsection (3) of section 8 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1937 (penalties and legal proceedings), for the words after "be" there shall be substituted the words "proceeded against and punished in Scotland".'.—[Mr. John MacKay.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 53, in line 8, leave out `and'. No. 54, in line 9, after '1966', insert
'and section 9 of the Diseases of Fish Act 1983'. —[Mr. John MacKay.]

Order for Third Reading read.—

[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. John Townend: I do not wish to detain the House for long at this time of night, but I would like to put it on record that the Bill, as finally amended, will cause some concern to the fishing industry in Bridlington, particularly to the fishermen who operate fixed nets.
There is a feeling that too much power has been given to the water authorities. For example, clause 36 states that:
A local fisheries committee shall not make byelaws for any purpose mentioned in subsection (1) and (2) above unless the water authority … have consented to byelaws being made".
Clause 32 extends the controls to include not only fixed nets for salmon fishing but also for other fishing in tidal waters. This gives the water authority power to control the fishing of cod and sole by fixed nets. I am not sure whether that was the original intention. This is a vital part of the

livelihood of the coble owners in Bridlington and it would mean that the water authority, if so inclined, could restrict that type of fishing.
I am not saying that the water authority would take that action, but I am afraid that from past experience the Bridlington fishermen have very little confidence that the Yorkshire authority would pay adequate regard to the interests of the commercial fishermen.
Clause 35 also introduces a further restriction on the fixed net fishermen — that whenever a salmon or sea trout net is hauled the licensee must be present. While this might be acceptable for drift nets, it will cause great difficulty for the fixed netsmen who set T and J nets which are not nearly as profitable as drift nets. It will make it virtually impossible for them to continue other fishing operations, such as potting, yet these other activities are essential to sustain a living, particularly in the summer months.
There is a strong argument for exempting T and J nets from the regulations but that has not been accepted by the Government, even though only 5 per cent. of the catch is salmon. The remainder is salmon trout and there are adequate stocks in the North sea. There is a feeling in Bridlington that the fishermen's interests have been sacrificed to the salmon lobby, which includes many prominent members of the other place from where the Bill originated.
I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware of these reservations among the fishing community and that, having listened carefully, he will be able to assure our fishermen that their fears are unlikely to be fulfilled.

Mr. Home Robertson: That was a fascinating Second Reading speech. It may read well in the local press in the Bridlington area, but the hon. Gentleman's misgivings and remarks would have been slightly more convincing had he raised them earlier. If he is that unhappy about some of the clauses, I wonder why he did not vote against them.
The Opposition see the Bill as a sad waste of a potentially valuable opportunity to legislate for the future of salmon and freshwater fisheries. We should like to have seen a serious attempt to restructure the administration of these fisheries in a manner that would have achieved the respect of all interested parties. We should like to have seen a sensibly constituted set of salmon fishery boards with the authority and resources to protect and develop salmon fishing in the coming years and, indeed, to conserve stocks. I fear that the Bill fails to measure up to those objectives. It clings to the principle of proprietorial privilege and authority in the constitution of the boards. I suppose that is precisely what one ought to expect from any Tory Government. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) echo that sentiment.
The Bill also gives some unwarranted powers to the boards and their bailiffs which could lead to even more conflict and even less respect for the law on our rivers and lochs. However, we support the principle of dealer licensing and live in hope that the standing advisory committee on salmon conservation will get the personnel, resources and attention that it deserves. When in due course they are appointed by the Ministry, we wish Professor Dunnet and his colleagues well in their deliberations.
The dealer licensing scheme and the advisory committee are two potentially useful factors. We welcome those redeeming features in an otherwise sad piece of legislation.

Mr. Beith: I share some of the misgivings of the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), but I agree that he should have expressed them at an earlier stage in our proceedings. He could have helped in getting some of the clauses changed and could have tabled some amendments for the Report stage of the Bill. Unfortunately, he has already left the Chamber.
With regard to the Bill, I take a more sanguine view than does the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). There is much good in the Bill and it contains a number of useful provisions. I regret the fact that much of it is concerned with enabling powers and that Ministers will be left to decide, by order, important questions.
It is good that the Minister has ensured a balance between the interests of those who draw their livelihoods from salmon and conservation fishing. He has resisted the attempts of a few to hijack the Bill for a vindictive attack on one group of fishermen and their attempts to deprive these fishermen of their livelihoods. I appreciate the responsible action of the Minister.

Mr. MacKay: This is an important Bill on an important subject. It will be of great benefit to the conservation of salmon species and will benefit future salmon angling.
We have attempted to keep a balance between netting and angling and that is right and proper. I assure the House that my right hon. Friend and I will try, as quickly as possible, to implement the Bill so that it can soon benefit salmon fishing. I indulge in a little salmon angling and I look forward to the benefits which will accrue to me and to other anglers in the years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Diabetics (Equipment)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: I now turn to a different subject. I must declare an interest in this subject as I am the parent of a diabetic child. I am in the fortunate position, like other hon. Members of the House who have diabetic children, that I can afford to buy the supplies which are the subject of this debate.
Experience has given me a vivid understanding of the problems of those who find it difficult to pay for these things. I am on record as having raised this matter as far back as 1976 before I found myself personally involved as a parent.
I will be interested to hear the response of the Minister. It may be her first reply to an Adjournment debate, in which case I hope that she will take the opportunity to give a most positive reply and set a good precedent for the future.
Diabetes mellitus, or sugar diabetes, affects more than 1 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and the incidence is increasing. It can develop in childhood or at any stage and almost invariably remains with a person for the rest of his life. Over 150,000 diabetics in England and Wales are dependent on injections of insulin, usually twice a day. They must also monitor their blood sugar level constantly through blood and urine tests. They must also follow a careful diet.
When the Minister is tempted to make controversial comments about healthy eating, she should remember that there is one group of people whose lives depend on healthy eating and who watch their diet very carefully — the diabetics. Because sugar-free jams and other items are often expensive and because they need to eat at frequent intervals—they often have to buy a snack when out in the middle of the morning or the afternoon when someone else would wait until lunch or dinner—they face higher costs for food.
It is therefore very important that they should not also have to face costs for essential medical requirements, but at present they do, because neither plastic syringes nor blood glucose monitoring strips are available on prescription from family doctors. At present the only syringe which GPs can prescribe is the cumbersome glass syringe, which has to be sterilised each time it is used.
The disposable plastic syringe is a far better alternative. It is much easier to handle and carry, and does not require sterilisation. In my experience it is extremely difficult to inject a small child with a glass syringe. Both hands are needed to hold the glass syringe and the plunger is apt to slip. If, however, one is holding and trying to reassure a child, one needs a spare hand for at least some of the time.
It is much easier for a child with small hands to use a plastic syringe for his or her own injections. We want to encourage children to do their own injections. The teenager is able to lead a much more normal life if he can carry with him a plastic syringe instead of all the equipment that is associated with the glass syringe. It is also much easier to obtain accuracy over small doses with plastic syringes. That is vital for control, which has become much more important since the introduction of the U100 insulin, where the marks to which one works are often very small.
Given all the advantages of plastic syringes for many diabetics, they find it difficult to understand why the Government insist that their general practitioner should prescribe for them only the glass syringe. Could it be that an enormous cost is involved? The evidence suggests otherwise. There is now considerable experience which suggests that it may be cheaper to issue disposable syringes. A study in Southampton, reported in the British Medical Journal of 28 June 1986, put the cost of plastic syringes at less than half that for glass syringes and reported direct savings to the health authority as a result of issuing plastic syringes. Other work, by Dr. Arnold Bloom at Wittington hospital and Dr. N. R. Waugh at Dundee, also questions the Government's cost figures.
Several factors have to be borne in mind in assessing the cost of glass syringes, including the amount of insulin that is wasted in them because of "dead" space—insulin that is not used and that is washed out when the syringe is cleaned. However, there is one reason, above all, for the disparity between the Government's figures and those which are accepted by the medical profession. It is now accepted professionally that disposable syringes can be used more than once, and most of the diabetics who use them say that they use them several times. There is no evidence, if the syringes are kept in proper conditions—which usually means just putting them in the fridge—that this poses any risk of infection. Indeed, there is thought to be a greater risk from the use of glass syringes. However, the Department of Health and Social Security refuses to admit that re-use is acceptable, and it assumes that diabetics wish to be supplied with two new plastic syringes per day. They might like such a facility, but they are realistic enough to welcome a more limited supply of syringes that can be re-used.
This extraordinary obstinacy by the Department, in the face of overwhelming medical opinion, is causing real hardship to many diabetics. I plead with the Minister to bring about a change of attitude. If she is still worried about the cost and the number of syringes to be issued, there is one way out. She could allow diabetics to be issued with a voucher that is equivalent to the present cost of prescribing glass syringes. Then diabetics could choose for themselves whether to spend it on a glass syringe or on disposable syringes. At least they would be able to make that choice for themselves, with the advice of their doctor, at no extra cost to the Government.
There is another item of essential equipment that the family doctor cannot prescribe—blood glucose monitoring strips. If a diabetic is to avoid appalling complications, such as blindness, kidney failure or amputations, strict control is essential, and the only reliable way to achieve strict control is through blood testing. Urine testing is useful but it is not so reliable, because the time lapse is much greater. Many diabetics, therefore, are expected to take samples of their blood for testing, perhaps several times a clay; yet we also expect them to pay for the privilege of undergoing these very uncomfortable tests by buying their own testing strips at a retail cost of about £15 for a tube of 50 strips. The Government could make these strips available on prescription at a cost of less than £5 million a year.
If more diabetics carried out more frequent blood tests, there is no doubt that complications and hospital admissions could be greatly reduced. The cost of the admission of diabetics is about £90 million a year and the cost of treating complications is about £62 million a year.
I emphasise that control prevents hospital admissions. A well-controlled diabetic will be admitted to hospital much less often and the likelihood of complications will be much less great. Five million pounds is a tiny figure to set against a massive potential reduction in human misery and in cost to the National Health Service.
The Minister will no doubt point out that it is possible for both disposable syringes and testing strips to be supplied free by hospital consultants to their patients, even though general practitioners cannot prescribe them. But that is not an adequate alternative. Many diabetics are not under hospital care, and it is the Government's policy that care of patients with chronic diseases should be increasingly undertaken by family doctors who are able to see patients more frequently and deal with all aspects of their health. I support that policy. I think that it is sensible in many cases. The family doctor should be entrusted with the regular week-by-week supervision of the chronically ill patient. It would relieve the hospital clinics of a great deal of pressure and, for many patients, it is the best way to receive care. Improving the standards of GP training and retraining make it a more satisfactory alternative.
However, it will not be possible to maintain that policy if there is a two-tier standard of service under which a consultant can prescribe what the diabetic patient needs but a general practitioner cannot. The patient, once he realises that he can get the supplies he needs by remaining under hospital care, will prefer to do so rather than transfer to the GP who he knows is restricted from prescribing what he needs.
Hospitals are under such pressure that the ability of consultants to make syringes and testing strips available to their patients may be under threat. It has been reported to me that in some areas, not my own, that difficulty is beginning to arise.
I urge the Minister to press the case as hard as she can with her colleagues, including her Treasury colleagues, who I understand are considering the specific issue. A number of hon. Members contacted Ministers, including Treasury Ministers, earlier this year. I have before me a reply from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) in which the Chief Secretary said that he is aware of the case for making both blood test strips and plastic insulin syringes for diabetics available under the family practitioner service. He said:
Nevertheless, there are resource implications which both we and the DHSS have to consider—and set against other major demands on resources under the NHS. There could also be knock-on effects for other patients … the growing lobby in favour of issue of free syringes to drug abusers to help combat the spread of AIDS".
I might say in passing that diabetics simply would not understand it and would find it extraordinary if the Government were to decide that syringes should be macle available to drug abusers because of the AIDS problem but not made available to diabetics. That would be a terrible slap in the face for people who have struggled so hard over the years to control a condition. The Chief Secretary continued:
Norman Fowler and I will be considering this issue when we come to the Public Expenditure Survey in the autumn. I obviously cannot at this stage comment on the likely outcome; but I will certainly bear in mind your representations.
I hope that that process of consideration is going ahead favourably and that the Minister, who has recently come to office, will add her voice to the pressure on Treasury


Ministers to be helpful, especially regarding glucose monitoring strips. The British Medical Association has made representations to her Department, as have Government and Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern) has asked me to make known his support for that, as well as for the issue of plastic syringes. The costs involved are small. The resultant savings in treatment costs are potentially large. The Minister could bring great relief to thousands of diabetics who seek, by rigorous self-control, to lead full, active, long and healthy lives. They deserve the Government's support.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on his success in the ballot and on his diligence in raising this important subject. I suspect that I share with him a degree of disappointment that we are debating it so late at night when many other hon. Members have expressed interest in and support for the points he made. I recognise also that he made his points from personal experience, having a diabetic child. He may not be aware that diabetes is also present in my own family—on my father's side. I took a close interest in the subject before I became a Minister.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the condition diabetes mellitus is found in 1 to 2 per cent. of the population. With proper treatment, diabetic patients can be kept fit and in full productive work. Over the past 40 years, great progress has been made in the management of patients with diabetes and its complications. We have seen significant improvements in understanding the disease and its effects, in the development and evaluation of new forms of detection and treatment, and in enabling sufferers and their families to live their lives with the minimum of disruption and anxiety.
As the hon. Gentleman said, diabetics need to control their blood sugar level. Most can do that through diet or tablets. However, 150,000 to 200,000 diabetics in England and Wales need injections of insulin to manage their condition effectively. We have the greatest sympathy and indeed admiration for those people, especially children and their families. They must exercise self-discipline, monitor their condition, follow a controlled diet, and give themselves daily injections of insulin.
I shall deal in turn with each of the commodities that we have been discussing, the first of which is blood test strips. Personal blood glucose monitoring is an integral part of modern diabetic care. The urine tests which are available on the Health Service are adequate for diabetics whose condition is controlled by diet or tablets, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree. They are quick and easy to use. For insulin-using diabetics, urine tests allow some measure of control and have been standard and available for many years. More recently, it has been recognised that blood testing has advantages over urine tests. First, they give an accurate and direct reading of blood sugar level at the time of the test and, secondly, that fact allows the patient to take action to keep blood sugar within normal levels immediately, if necessary.
That is extremely important, since too low a blood sugar level—hypoglycaemia—can lead to unconsciousness, even death, and too high a blood sugar level—

hyperglycaemia—for a prolonged period increases the potential risk of long-term complications such as blindness and kidney failure. However, blood testing is not particularly pleasant. It involves pricking the finger, and some people will undoubtedly prefer urine testing, perhaps particularly for children.
I have some syringes with me. It is claimed that plastic disposable syringes are more comfortable. The needles are thinner and are lubricated. It is claimed that they are more convenient than re-usable glass syringes. We understand why many patients, especially children, prefer them. In some cases consultants may arrange for them to be provided under the hospital service because they are medically necessary, but in most cases they offer no medical advantage over glass and metal syringes and re-usable needles, which GPs can prescribe, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, both blood glucose testing strips and disposable syringes are available on the Health Service through hospitals when they are medically necessary. That is where a consultant thinks it advisable. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is not good enough, but that is a matter of fact. For some years we have seen sustained pressure from patients, doctors, hon. Members and all those interested for these items to be available on GP prescription.
The effort became more notable last year when the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association and the British Diabetic Association joined forces in making representations to the Department. That culminated in a meeting last November with officials of my Department and I shall return to what was said at that meeting.
Early-day motion No. 1070 attracted before the recess 38 signatures of hon. Members. A deputation of hon. Members came and saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe), who was then the Minister for Health, on 15 July. Since August we have received more than 300 letters from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Many constituents were undoubtedly encouraged to write by an article in the August edition of "Balance" magazine, which is published by the BDA, and which gave precise and accurate advice on how to lobby Members of Parliament.
I shall now turn to the drug tariff list of prescribable appliances, about which we are talking. I hope that it is obvious that the Government have considerable sympathy with the case put forward by the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues. So why are blood glucose testing strips and disposable syringes not prescribable by general practitioners? There has always been an approved list of dressings and appliances which a general practitioner may prescribe. The intention of that list was to ensure that the range of dressings and appliances commonly used in general practice were readily available through retail chemists. The list was never intended to be comprehensive. It would not be practicable or cost-effective to include all items which may be supplied through the hospital service.
It is also important to keep that list up to date. Changes are made in consultation with the medical and pharmaceutical professions in the light of the changing needs of general practice, the extent of demand, the availability and the cost. There is relatively little problem where new products are cheaper, or at least no more expensive, than products for a similar purpose already on the list. I hope that we keep the list up to date with more


modern methods and materials. However, where the products have a high price they must be considered alongside competing priorities for the NHS.
I have some detailed figures which I hope will be of assistance to the hon. Gentleman. The comparable product for blood test strips is urine test strips. The family practitioner services currently spend over £2 million a year on urine testing. The drug tariff price for urine test strips is about £1·50 for 50, or about 3p each. A mail order company is advertising blood test strips in "Balance" magazine at £9·15 for 50, or 18p each, while another company is selling them at £13·50 for 50, which is 27p each. That is 27p compared with 3p, so we are talking about nine times the cost. Retail prices can be even higher.
Even assuming that we could arrange supplies at a substantially reduced cost, we estimate that the additional cost to the family practitioner services could be up to £10 million a year. There is the question of offsetting the saving, but at present we have insufficient information to estimate the saving to the hospital service from a reduction in the issue of blood test strips or the saving from reduced in-patient admissions resulting from better control of the condition. However, I am aware of the case that is being made.
The question of syringes is more complicated. Disposable syringes are a lot cheaper than re-usable glass ones. The most widely used brand advertised in "Balance" costs £1·17 for 10, or 12p each. The drug tariff price for glass and metal syringes is £6·25. Needles are about 16p each and the carrying case for the syringes and needles costs £·75.
Glass syringes and the needles that go with them can, of course, be used many times, but one does not need to be a mathematical genius to work out that they cost 50 times as much, or perhaps even more.
We are currently spending about £1·2 million a year on these re-usable syringes and needles. A simple calculation based on the number of times an average diabetic will use insulin and the number of diabetics w ho are likely to use these syringes shows that it would cost at least £8 million to supply disposable syringes to all insulin-dependent diabetics for use on this basis.
We accept that many diabetics who buy their own disposable syringes use them more than once, but there is a wide variation in the pattern of use. It is difficult to predict what would happen if disposable syringes were provided free, bearing in mind that diabetics do not pay prescription charges and would have no incentive therefore to re-use them.
The equipment is also supplied sterile and is not intended to be resterilised. It is clearly intended for single use. Manufacturers, bearing in mind product liability, make it clear that syringes are intended for single use. The packet that I have with me, imported from the United States, has "Single use" printed twice on the packet. It has "Use once and destroy" printed clearly on the packet, and that is printed on every syringe. The Department could be in a difficult legal position, we are advised, if we instructed people to ignore that advice, and something went wrong. It is also clear from our correspondence that many diabetics use them only once and discard them.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister consider the matter again? Will she take account of the strong, professionally qualified medical opinion that re-use is not only safe but

is probably safer than the glass syringe? The Department really should find a way through these technical and legal difficulties.

Mrs. Currie: As I said earlier, the Department is discussing closely and in great detail with the medical advisers and representatives of the British Diabetic Association. Many more of these goods are becoming available on the market, and perhaps that makes our life a little easier than it might have been some time ago.
Like diabetics, other patients, such as drug misusers, may get disposable syringe on the National Health Service through the hospital service. GPs may not prescribe them. Drug misusers attending special NHS drug dependence centres may get single use syringes for use with prescribed drugs. Doctors prescribe treatment in individual cases. The recommended practice in most cases is to prescribe an oral preparation for a short weaning-off period. Nevertheless, I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's argument.
Even record levels of spending on the National Health Service do not mean that we can afford to do everything that we would like. We take seriously, however, the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised and those taken up by all other correspondents. We must hear in mind that testing strips and disposable syringes are available on the Health Service through hospitals when they are medically necessary. Provision may vary somewhat according to individual clinical decisions, and that would apply if general practitioners were to prescribe. It varies to sonic extent also according to health authorities' different views on spending priorities. We understand the arguments for supply on GPs' prescriptions.
I have taken further advice on which of the two different pieces of equipment we would regard as having the higher priority. I recognise that many patients would prefer to see syringes given a higher priority because of the comfort and convenience of use, but as a matter of simple fact the medical advice that has been received is that it would be the glucose blood testing strips that would be regarded medically as the higher priority. That course would enable an improvement to be made in the quality of information to the diabetic. The disposable syringes, while presenting more comfort, would make no medical change in the condition of the patient. This was accepted by the general medical services committee and the British Diabetic Association when they met the Department's officials in November.
I am unable to make the promises that the hon. Gentleman wants on making blood testing strips available on GP prescription, but that provision will have a high priority if and when resources become available. Price is an important factor, and the strips will not be made available unless a satisfactory price can be negotiated.
Disposable syringes are not likely to be available on GP prescription just at present. We are, however, keeping the comparative costs of disposable and re-usable syringes under close scrutiny. The BDA tells us that it intends to put proposals to the Department for a voucher scheme for hypodermic equipment along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, and this is a proposal that we shall consider carefully.
I know that the hon. Gentleman may not find my response wholly satisfactory, and I am sorry about that.


I hope I have assured him, however, of our concern to ensure that all the necessary medical items are available to diabetics and other patients through the NHS.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past One o'clock.